He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 3. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 107,880. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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.. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 2010). Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 What was the outcome? Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. pronounced. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Facts. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. 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. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts 107,879, as an interpreter. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. 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. 134961. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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." (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. at 1020. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Western District of Oklahoma Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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.. Would you have reached the . 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. 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 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. 10th Circuit. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms.