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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 269501. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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."). 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 3. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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." 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. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Advanced A.I. 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. September 17, 2010. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Opinion by Wm. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 107,879. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! 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. 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, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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." 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. United States District Courts. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Western District of Oklahoma. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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 asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. 2nd Circuit. Yes. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. We agree. Elements: Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. "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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. accident), Expand root word by any number of 134961. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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; Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 You can explore additional available newsletters here. What was the outcome? Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. 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. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. to the other party.Id. "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. 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 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. . Facts. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 7. 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.