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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 3. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. letters. 1. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 39 N.E. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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 Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 7. 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?) That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 3. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Docket No. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. September 17, 2010. 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 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. 1. Western District of Oklahoma. 60252. Advanced A.I. 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. We agree. 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." 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 1. 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. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 269501. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. 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 person would accept on the other. Plaintiff appealed. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 107,880. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." 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 Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. 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." 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Facts. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. E-Commerce 1. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. View the full answer Step 2/2 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. 1. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson at 1020. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Supreme Court of Michigan. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Subscribers can access the reported version of 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 134961. 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. 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." Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Elements: He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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." Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to "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." 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; STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine App. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Western District of Oklahoma 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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, 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 6. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS 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. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. "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." accident), Expand root word by any number of STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 1. 1. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years.