Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." That judgment is AFFIRMED. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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 empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 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. Opinion by Wm. 107,879, as an interpreter. 107,880. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. ACCEPT. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. to the other party.Id. 7. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 9. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. 10th Circuit. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. . 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. We agree. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Western District of Oklahoma Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Would you have reached the . 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Citation is not available at this time. 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.