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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.". Western District of Oklahoma 1. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. He alleged Buyers. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Would you have reached the . Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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." An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 6. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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." The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. 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 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. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Opinion by WM. 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.". Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 to the other party.Id. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 1. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 4. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Facts. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 107880. 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." 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. 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.. 8. 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 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." 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. 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 . All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 107,880. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. No. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. No. 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. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Supreme Court of Michigan. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Xiong. 1. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Plaintiff appealed. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. (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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. at 1020. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 7. 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 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case 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. 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 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Opinion by Wm. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 134961. 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Elements: Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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." 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900.
Who Blew Up Tony On Queen Of The South, Articles S