They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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." 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. "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. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,879, as an interpreter. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 1. No. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Western District of Oklahoma Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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." 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Discuss the court decision in this case. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 269501. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. September 17, 2010. 3. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs 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. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 1. 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.". Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. September 17, 2010. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Citation is not available at this time. 107, 879, as an interpreter. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 4. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 6. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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). 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 107,879, as an interpreter. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. Want more details on this case? The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 2nd Circuit. 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. 107879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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.