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. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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 . 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. right or left of "armed robbery. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.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 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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 testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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.. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee No. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 6. 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 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 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. 107,880. Opinion by WM. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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.". 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. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 107,880. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Please check back later. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. No. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. September 17, 2010. 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. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. 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. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. ACCEPT. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. at 1020. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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, FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Rationale? 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. 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. Opinion by WM. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. . STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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 man would accept on the other. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. 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.". Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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." Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 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. 1. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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." 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. They received little or no education and could. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 1. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 8. 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. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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 man would accept on the other. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 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. 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 Discuss the court decision in this case. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 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." 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. 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. 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." 1. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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." 4. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. accident), Expand root word by any number of 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Advanced A.I. 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 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). We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Toker v. Westerman . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Try it free for 7 days! 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. letters.