";s:4:"text";s:11971:"The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 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 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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.. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. 10th Circuit. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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." 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. 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. 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 UCC Book to read! Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 6. 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. 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.. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. E-Commerce 1. 107880. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 107,879. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." at 1020. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Try it free for 7 days! Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. View the full answer Step 2/2 As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. September 17, 2010. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Discuss the court decision in this case. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. You're all set! Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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."). He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. v.
1980), accord, 12A O.S. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,880. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". . All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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." 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. 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. 60252. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 4. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. ";s:7:"keyword";s:13:"stoll v xiong";s:5:"links";s:1026:"Woman Dies In Hiking Accident,
Saddleworth Moor Car Park,
Best Sunday Lunch In Swansea,
Shoreland Kennels Complaints,
Lilac Rabbit For Sale Near Illinois,
Articles S
";s:7:"expired";i:-1;}