stoll v xiong

Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. to the other party.Id. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. Opinion by Wm. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. at 1020. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. . He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 1. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Want more details on this case? Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary 1. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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 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. 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. No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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." 1. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 107,879. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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.". Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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." View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 107879. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. 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. 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. What was the outcome? #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. letters. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 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." ACCEPT. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. September 17, 2010. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. . COA No. 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 couple buys real estate for 130,000. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 9. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 269501. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. We agree. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case 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. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. Stoll v. Xiong. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 107880. 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. 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.

Steroids And Cheating In Relationships, Articles S