stoll v xiong

stoll v xiong

318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He alleged Buyers. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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 Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 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. 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. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. pronounced. 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 testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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." But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? v. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Try it free for 7 days! whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 269501. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. at 1020. 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.". 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. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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.". He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. They received little or no education and could. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. No. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 5. "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. 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." accident), Expand root word by any number of Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). right of "armed robbery. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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." Hetherington, Judge. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 2nd Circuit. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. United States District Courts. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. 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. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Opinion by WM. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. No. Plaintiff appealed. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Opinion by Wm. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 8. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? #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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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 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." 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. 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. 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. (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]. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 39 N.E. 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. 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.. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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."

Uber Eats Driver Diamond Rewards, Articles S