stoll v xiong

He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. . 5. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Explain the facts of the case and the result. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Want more details on this case? The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. . The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 7. 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. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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. They received little or no education and could. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in 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. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. View the full answer Step 2/2 Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 3. 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." 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 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. Opinion by WM. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. No. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 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. 4. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 107,880. 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. at 1020. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. 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." 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. 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." 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. App. 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. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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." 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 . 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. 1. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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 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." She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Advanced A.I. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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." 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. E-Commerce 1. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. to the other party.Id. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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."). Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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.. September 17, 2010. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. United States District Courts. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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 v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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.

Tsg Entertainment Careers, Tawny Skin Color, South Carolina Obituaries 2021, Has Mother Goose Liverwurst Been Discontinued, Articles S