. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment.
Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 Plaintiff appealed. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 4. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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.
STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,879.
Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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 v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Rationale? 7. .
STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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." 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." 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Want more details on this case? Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Discuss the court decision in this case. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 9. 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.
Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 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. 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.
PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. 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.8. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 107,879. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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.
BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900.
UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him."