Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Toker v. Westerman . business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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?) At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. 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. 1. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . No. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. We agree. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 1. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. 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. Rationale? The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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 . 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." 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. (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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). at 1020. 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. 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. 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. letters. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. "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." Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 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. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. to the other party.Id. 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." CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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 just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 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. 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. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 3. 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. "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. No. Yes. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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.. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. E-Commerce 1. 107,880. 134961. 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. COA No. 1. 2010). 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Plaintiff appealed. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. App. "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. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 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. 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. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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 Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Docket No. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. pronounced. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. September 17, 2010. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions 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. 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. 1. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 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. They received little or no education and could. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. You're all set! 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Opinion by WM. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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." Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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 The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. accident), Expand root word by any number of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. - 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). Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW September 17, 2010. 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 (Okla. Civ. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." 60252. 107,880. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. "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." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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.