Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 269501. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Elements: 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." Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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." Try it free for 7 days! 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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." Yes. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Opinion by Wm. 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. 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. 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.". You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Hetherington, Judge. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 134961. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 1. 107,880. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. 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?) 107,880. Melody Boeckman, No. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. We agree. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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." (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. 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. 8. 107,879. 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. . Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Advanced A.I. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. What was the outcome? The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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. 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." accident), Expand root word by any number of COA No. 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." 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Want more details on this case? He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 10th Circuit. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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 received little or no education and could. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". That judgment is AFFIRMED. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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." Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. Would you have reached the . 1. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 2010). 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. 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." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 3. to the other party.Id. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. 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." #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. 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 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. 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." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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 .