We agree. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. to the other party.Id. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. at 1020. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. 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." Explain the facts of the case and the result. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. pronounced. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Melody Boeckman, No. September 17, 2010. 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. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. No. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 107,879. 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?) Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Stoll v. Xiong. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. letters. . 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. 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." It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Opinion by WM. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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 As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 1. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Want more details on this case? 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. "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. 1. to the other party.Id. 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 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. September 17, 2010. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. Opinion by Wm. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. "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." 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 3. 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; Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Plaintiff appealed. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 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. 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 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. ACCEPT. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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. Western District of Oklahoma 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." Please check back later. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Discuss the court decision in this case. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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.
Francois Pinault Grandchildren,
A Flight Instructor Demonstrates Their Coaching Ability By,
Police Codes Wisconsin,
Articles S