Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1. 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. 1. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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."). 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. 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. 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. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Toker v. Westerman . 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.". 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." After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. You're all set! The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. ACCEPT. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. "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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. 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. 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. He alleged Buyers. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. (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. Rationale? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Opinion by Wm. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. Doccol - -SCI pronounced. 8. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 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. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. We agree. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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 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?) Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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.