Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. letters. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Plaintiff appealed. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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." The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. September 17, 2010. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 2. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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." 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. 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. 1. 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." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. We agree. No. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. pronounced. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Stoll v. Xiong. Facts. 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. Please check back later. 39 N.E. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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 The UCC Book to read! 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. 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. 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 request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 107,880. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. . 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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): 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 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. 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." 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. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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 included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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." 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 1. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received.