All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Hetherington, Judge. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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 claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." You're all set! 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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, 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. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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 107,879, 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. 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." 1. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. . Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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." 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. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. "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." Try it free for 7 days! 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. 107,880. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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.". Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 2nd Circuit. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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.. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No.
