Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 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. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Discuss the court decision in this case. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Opinion by WM. "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." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. . 9. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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." What was the outcome? Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. September 17, 2010. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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." Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. Want more details on this case? 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". 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."). 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. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. 5. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". 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." 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Citation is not available at this time. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. "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." Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. Elements: 107,880. 4 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. 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; Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 2010). Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. 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." We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. to the other party.Id. 4. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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 Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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." Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll v. Xiong. Docket No. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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." As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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. 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. 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 . Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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.

Ocala Hot Air Balloon Festival 2021, Articles S