Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)
From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. Xiong’s wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land.
Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars.
Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. However, the interpreter didn’t understand the litter provision. Yang didn’t understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. The buyers sold the litter to third parties.
Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers’ favor. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries