Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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). 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 3. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. We agree. 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." 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . 107,880. 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. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Discuss the court decision in this case. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 2. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. to the other party.Id. at 1020. 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. E-Commerce 1. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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." 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. . Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. 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." Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 134961. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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."). Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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.
- Text "Hockey" to 618-238-2336 for a Free Demo