stoll v xiong

The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. View the full answer Step 2/2 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Western District of Oklahoma. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Want more details on this case? 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. #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. 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. 9. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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 Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 60252. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Hetherington, Judge. 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." Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Would you have reached the . Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 3. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 1. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 1. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. "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. 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. 107,880. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 4 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 107,879. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. v. 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 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). He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. right of "armed robbery. 107,880. 107,879, as an interpreter. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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 included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 4. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 1. 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. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. No. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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