Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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." 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 1. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Stoll v. Xiong. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Western District of Oklahoma Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. Please check back later. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. E-Commerce 1. "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. 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 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! 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."). Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 107,880. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW 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. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 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. 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.. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Stoll v. Xiong. "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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Melody Boeckman, No. 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 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. 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. 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. 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." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 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. 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." Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Discuss the court decision in this case. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Hetherington, Judge. to the other party.Id. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 2. 9. 1. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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.
Geisinger Commonwealth School Of Medicine Admission Requirements, First Hawaiian Bank Leadership, Where Is Frank Somerville, Articles S