6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". . After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Please check back later. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Supreme Court of Michigan. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 1. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Toker v. Westerman . An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. Western District of Oklahoma Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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 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. 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 v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine (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]. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet to the other party.Id. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 Yes. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 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. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. September 17, 2010. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 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. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 1. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 9. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. "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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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.. right of "armed robbery. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. No. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter.