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."). 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.. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. 2. 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 is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. at 1020. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. 2010). 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 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. "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." However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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." 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Western District of Oklahoma The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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 1. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Yes. 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 10th Circuit. 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. to the other party.Id. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. . 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. . 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. 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 . CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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 . The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.

Ean Holdings, Llc Headquarters Address, Johnson Bros Made In England Worth, October 7 Sun Sign, Articles S