Melody Boeckman, No. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 10th Circuit. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. No. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 6. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 2010). As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month adult school program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a-or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 107880. Explain the facts of the case and the result. letters. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Hetherington, Judge. at 1020. 1. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. September 17, 2010. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 39 N.E. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. . CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 8. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 1. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll v. Xiong. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. at 1020. An unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest person would accept on the other. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately 5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. v. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. No. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary