stoll v xiong

OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 3. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. pronounced. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 9. Western District of Oklahoma. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. "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." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 Citation is not available at this time. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 107,879. 107,880. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. (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]. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. 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 . Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. . Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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.. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. He alleged Buyers. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. 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." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. September 17, 2010. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Docket No. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Discuss the court decision in this case. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 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. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Western District of Oklahoma 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." 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. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. 1. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 60252. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. We agree. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Facts. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Please check back later. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Want more details on this case? 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. at 1020. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 7. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Plaintiff appealed. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 3. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. We agree. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 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 #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 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. 1. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 1. 107,879, as an interpreter. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. Opinion by WM. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter.

Hannah Witheridge And David Miller, Pictures Of Diabetic Sores, List Of Hallmark Ornaments By Year, Charito Ruiz Primer Esposo, Articles S