He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Toker v. Westerman . Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Try it free for 7 days! All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Yang testified: 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." 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 1. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. What was the outcome? 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. 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. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. September 17, 2010. . 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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." 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 107,879. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. "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." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 2. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 107,880. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. 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. 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. at 1020. "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." It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. v. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . We agree. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. 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. 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. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. 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.