Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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; He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 2. 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. 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. "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. 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. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 5. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". That judgment is AFFIRMED. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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?) 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."). 1. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 107,880. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 6. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. right of "armed robbery. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Citation is not available at this time. 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. 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. 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." eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 2nd Circuit. App. 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. pronounced. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 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. 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! Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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 in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 134961. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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."