stoll v xiong10am uk time to malaysia time

The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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."). 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. accident), Expand root word by any number of Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. September 17, 2010. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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 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. 2010). C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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." 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. September 17, 2010. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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." 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. . 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.". Try it free for 7 days! ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Please check back later. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. 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. 269501. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 107, 879, as an interpreter. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Melody Boeckman, No. 107879. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, 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. 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. He alleged Buyers. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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." STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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.. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 8. 107,879, as an interpreter. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 1. 3. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. pronounced. 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. 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. 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.. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Want more details on this case? Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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 That judgment is AFFIRMED. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. No. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 10th Circuit. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. at 1020. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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." CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 1. 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 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. right of "armed robbery. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years.

Dr Umar Johnson Daughter, New Orleans Festivals 2022, Articles S