17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 4. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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). 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. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 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; Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. No. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 60252. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. ACCEPT. 1. Western District of Oklahoma. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 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. . 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. 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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 107879. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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." Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . App. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 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." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 107,880. 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 . Try it free for 7 days! 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. 1. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. - 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). 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. . 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. He 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. letters. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW September 17, 2010. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. E-Commerce 1. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets "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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 1. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. at 1020. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 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. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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." Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. right of "armed robbery. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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." 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. Docket No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 9. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." They received little or no education and could. 7. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www "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." UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 3. 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. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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, Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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 v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 1. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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." Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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.