241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. September 17, 2010. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. 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 Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. App. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 1. 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. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 1. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. . Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. They received little or no education and could. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. We agree. at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 10th Circuit. Would you have reached the . Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 1. 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. . After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. 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 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. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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.. What was the outcome? Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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." The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. pronounced. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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.