2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 107,880. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 1. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 107880. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Toker v. Westerman . Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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.. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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." 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. You're all set! 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 107,879. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. 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. September 17, 2010. Hetherington, Judge. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. App. Advanced A.I. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Facts. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 107,879, as an interpreter. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (60) acre parcel of real estate located in 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.. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. No. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would "have litter for sale, now it's not available." 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a preliminary version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone (i.e.,which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. 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. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 8. 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 2. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee We agree. 1. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. v. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Supreme Court of Michigan. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Please check back later. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 107,879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. No. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec He alleged Buyers. to the other party.Id. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n 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 man would accept on the other." The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 20 Buyers argue no fair and honest person would propose and no rational person would enter into a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com because the facts are presented in documentary form. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Opinion by WM. 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. 9. 107,879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 4. Discuss the court decision in this case. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. 269501. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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, 107879. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 107,880. 4 Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. No. 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 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., He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available.. The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. E-Commerce 1. 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. 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. 1. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment.