stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 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." #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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 2010). accident), Expand root word by any number of We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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.. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. . Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. ACCEPT. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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." The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. 10th Circuit. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Opinion by Wm. 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.". Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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 10th Circuit. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 107879, 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 1. 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." After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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 person would accept on the other. 1. 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." The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 134961. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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 at 1020. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs 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 buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 6. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. right or left of "armed robbery. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 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. They received little or no education and could. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Toker v. Westerman . He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Xiong. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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; 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. 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." Western District of Oklahoma 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. We agree. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 7. Plaintiff appealed. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. (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. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. 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 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. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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 in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 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). Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain App. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 1. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Would you have reached the . The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. "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. September 17, 2010. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. We agree. 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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 Docket No. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. at 1020. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. 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. 5. Please check back later. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 2. to the other party.Id. "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. 1. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Elements: Melody Boeckman, No. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. No. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. We agree. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Hetherington, Judge. 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 asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. You're all set! However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator . 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."