stoll v xiong

Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 6. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 107,879. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 1. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. 269501. 2nd Circuit. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 5. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." . 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Western District of Oklahoma. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries 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. "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. 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. 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. (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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. . 1. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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! Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. 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." GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 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. 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. 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 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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." In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 1. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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?) ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Plaintiff appealed. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. #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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. The UCC Book to read! 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Try it free for 7 days! Citation is not available at this time. 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. . He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. 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. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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; Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Stoll v. Xiong. 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." 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. COA No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. 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. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 107,880. 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." Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. right of "armed robbery. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 2. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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 v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 1. 60252. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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."). 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Please check back later. 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.

Conclave Penelope Douglas Summary, Articles S