stoll v xiong

The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. The UCC Book to read! Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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 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. He alleged Buyers. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Facts. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. 1. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone (i.e.,which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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." 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."). 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 1. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. 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. . 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." 107, 879, as an interpreter. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. . Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 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. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. E-Commerce 1. 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. 10th Circuit. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. United States District Courts. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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 . Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Supreme Court of Michigan. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 1. 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. What was the outcome? 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. September 17, 2010. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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.. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. "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." 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. (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]. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. right of "armed robbery. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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." The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. 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. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. You're all set! 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. 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,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. 10th Circuit. 107,879, as an interpreter. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words.

Louisiana Grills 7 Series Vertical Pellet Smoker Manual, Keluarga Vincent Rompies, Articles S