Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Docket No. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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 The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. 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 v. Xiong. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 1. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 10th Circuit. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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.. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. E-Commerce 1. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 39 N.E. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. 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. 1. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. pronounced. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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.. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. right or left of "armed robbery. Opinion by WM. 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. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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 Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. "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." 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. Advanced A.I. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. We agree. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Opinion by WM. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 1. 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. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. - 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). 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff.