stoll v xiong

The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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." Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. 1. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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 . 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. 5. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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 . Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 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. 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. Docket No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 3. 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. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 3. (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 1. 107,880. Elements: 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 107,879, as an interpreter. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. 2010). When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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; 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 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. September 17, 2010. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 60252. 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. 107879. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE . An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. We agree. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 4. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. COA No. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 107, 879, as an interpreter. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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 three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 10th Circuit. Plaintiff appealed. to the other party.Id. 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. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Opinion by WM. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. 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." 2. 1. 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. The buyers sold the litter 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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."