Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Hetherington, Judge. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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. "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." 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. 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 planned to sell or trade the litter. 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. 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. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 2010). Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 107880. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. 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 whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 107,879, as an interpreter. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Docket No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 107,880. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 7. 1. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. They received little or no education and could. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. 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." CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 3. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. at 1020. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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." Stoll v. Xiong. No. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). ACCEPT. 1. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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." You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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."