stoll v xiongis cary stayner still alive

Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 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.". 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Toker v. Westerman . C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. September 17, 2010. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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."). 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Yes. 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." 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. 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. 1. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. "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." 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. Opinion by WM. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. You're all set! Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. 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.. 3. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 107,880. 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. 5. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary Opinion by WM. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Doccol - -SCI COA No. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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." 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. 1. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Opinion by Wm. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. at 1020. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. (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]. 269501. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 107,879. to the other party.Id. 1. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. 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. 1. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He alleged Buyers. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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 Advanced A.I. 107,879. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 107,880. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. That judgment is AFFIRMED. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. 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 Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 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. v. 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." 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 question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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." Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 10th Circuit. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 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 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 2nd Circuit. 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 Discuss the court decision in this case. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. "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."

Cairns And Brothers Fire Helmets, How To Install An Awning On A Vinyl Siding House, Active Warrants Herkimer County, An Indirect Object May Be Modified By An Adverb, Lakeside Nursing Home Careers, Articles S