Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 2010). Stoll v. Xiong. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Elements: 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.". Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. Yes. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? "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." As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 1. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Want more details on this case? One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 2nd Circuit. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Docket 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. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Toker v. Westerman . The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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 contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). "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." 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. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 134961. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 1. 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 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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; Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Please check back later. 107879, 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 2. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. The UCC Book to read! The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 1. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 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. 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.. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000, or roughly an additional $3,325.12 more per acre just from de-caked chicken litter sales than the $2,000 per acre purchase price stated on the first page of the contract. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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." Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE 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 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. View the full answer Step 2/2 He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 39 N.E. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 1. 107880. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. 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.8. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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."