1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 107,879. 107,879. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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.. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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.". 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 He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . 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. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Opinion by WM. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 You're all set! whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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.. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Western District of Oklahoma. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 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.". near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Opinion by WM. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email [email protected] A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The UCC Book to read! Toker v. Westerman . The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 107,880. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. . VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Rationale? Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Western District of Oklahoma 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. 107879. 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. 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. 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. No. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words.
Ready To Ship Glueless Wigs, Articles S