stoll v xiong

All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets "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." 107879. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 107,880. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. at 1020. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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; Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 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 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet Discuss the court decision in this case. We agree. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. 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. No. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. 1. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. "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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 107,880. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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." 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." business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." You're all set! He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Toker v. Westerman . She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. at 1020. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Doccol - -SCI They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 60252. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 2. Discuss the court decision in this case. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 107,880. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! . That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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.

Tulsi Gabbard Husband Net Worth, Lord Shiva Daughters Names, Hantz Tankering Service Net Worth, David Duplissey Net Worth, Similarities Between Roman Theatre And Modern Theatre, Articles S