107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. 107,879. E-Commerce 1. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 8. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. September 17, 2010. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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 three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. "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." Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 107,879, as an interpreter. . Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. 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 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 107,879. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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." 1. The UCC Book to read! 2nd Circuit. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . accident), Expand root word by any number of Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. 107,880. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. COA No. 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." APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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). Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. ACCEPT. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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 Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 9. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? We agree. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. to the other party.Id. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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 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 Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Citation is not available at this time. Supreme Court of Michigan. 1. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. "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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Discuss the court decision in this 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma Western District of Oklahoma. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse.