stoll v xiong

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 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. 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. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 2nd Circuit. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 received little or no education and could. We agree. You're all set! 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Docket No. 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 in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. COA No. 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. 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. 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. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." 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.". Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Yes. (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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 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." Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. E-Commerce 1. 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. Opinion by WM. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. What was the outcome? They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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, Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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.. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 . Explain the facts of the case and the result. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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." Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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." We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Advanced A.I. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. App. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. to the other party.Id. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . No. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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.". Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 269501. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Would you have reached the . Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. 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. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Western District of Oklahoma. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 1. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 134961. 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 But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. at 1020. Rationale? ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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 . She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 5. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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.

George Keshishyan House, Parathyroid Surgery Scar Pictures, Gavin Wanganeen Parents, Reliance Jamnagar Refinery J4 Project, Articles S