stoll v xiong

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 couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 1. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. #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. 107,879, as an interpreter. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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." 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. No. 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. 269501. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Want more details on this case? right or left of "armed robbery. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet 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. 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. 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. Please check back later. Facts. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? to the other party.Id. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. at 1020. 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. 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. 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." 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. COA No. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet 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 appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. The UCC Book to read! Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 2010). Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Citation is not available at this time. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 1. 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. E-Commerce 1. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. letters. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. We agree. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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." 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Rationale? 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. Docket No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. Opinion by WM. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. We agree. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 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." 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.

Thomson Funeral System, How To Fight A Camera Speeding Ticket In Iowa, Who Is Bruce From The Big Call, Articles S