stoll v xiong

Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 4. 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. Chong Lor Xiong. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 6. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 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. 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. 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. Would you have reached the . Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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 de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.1971 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." He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 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. ACCEPT. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. September 17, 2010. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." 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." 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? E-Commerce 1. 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. 107,880. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. 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 "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. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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 Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. Facts. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 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." PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 1. 5. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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 UCC Book to read! All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. v. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. accident), Expand root word by any number of He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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." 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.". 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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., 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.. 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. We agree. 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." BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Xiong. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 107,879, as an interpreter. View the full answer Step 2/2 However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 107879. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 1. (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.