stoll v xiong

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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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." Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. pronounced. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Doccol - -SCI Try it free for 7 days! The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. . That judgment is AFFIRMED. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 1. 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. 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. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. 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. at 1020. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 107,879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. We agree. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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." 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. 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. 8. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. No. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 2nd Circuit. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 107879. 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. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. "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." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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. 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." 10th Circuit. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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 at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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.

Sumter, Sc Private Owner Homes For Rent, Articles S