“The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.” —Hetherington, Judge 

Facts: Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He spent three years in a refugee camp in Thailand before coming to the United States. He understands some English but can only read a few words of English. His wife Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. She received no education in Laos but took a few adult courses in English in the United States. Ronal Stoll contracted to sell Xiong and Yang (Buyers) a 60-acre parcel of real estate he owned in Delaware County, Oklahoma for $130,000. The purchase price represented $2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road. Nearby land sold for approximately $1,200 per acre. The written land sale contract described the property and the price, but Stoll added a provision that the Buyers were obligated to deliver to Stoll for thirty years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property. Stoll then planned on selling the litter. The Buyers thought they were buying the real estate for $130,000. When the Buyers failed to deliver the litter to Stoll, he sued the Buyers for breach of contract. The Buyers defended, alleging that the 30-year litter provision was unconscionable. The trial court calculated that the value of the litter added more than $3,000 per acre to the original purchase price of the land. The trial court held that the litter provision was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Stoll appealed. 

Issue: Is the 30-year litter clause unconscionable? 

Language of the Court: Here, the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. The parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 

Decision: The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that the litter provision of the land sale contract was unconscionable and unenforceable. The Buyers owned the real estate free of that provision. 

Ethics Questions: Did Stoll act ethically in this case? Were the buyers taken advantage of? Should the buyers have employed a lawyer to represent them to protect against unethical conduct?