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. 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. 107,879. 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. 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.. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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 STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine 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; 1. 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. 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 person would accept on the other. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 107880. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 6. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 107,879, as an interpreter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written 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." Elements: Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 1. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 1. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery No. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 2. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 7. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 10th Circuit. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, 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." 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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." Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 1. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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! "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.