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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 Facts. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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." letters. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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 received little or no education and could. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 1. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. accident), Expand root word by any number of But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Rationale? 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. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Advanced A.I. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Melody Boeckman, No. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 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. . Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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." People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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 is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." 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. 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. 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! 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 4. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. "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. 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. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. No. . 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. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. That judgment is AFFIRMED. COA No. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. We agree. pronounced. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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." UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 2nd Circuit. Opinion by WM. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 1. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 107880. 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. 107,880. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 2. 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 The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine 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. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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 . at 1020. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet No. 9. September 17, 2010. 1. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. . PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 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. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Please check back later. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321.