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., The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is, adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 5. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." letters. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . "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." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Doccol - -SCI Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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. "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. 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 Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Discuss the court decision in this case. 107,880. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 1. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 1. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 3. pronounced. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. September 17, 2010. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. to the other party.Id. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 8. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. We agree. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext
Barn Builders Sacramento Ca, Is Katherine Rednall In A Relationship, Dev Britain's Got Talent Real Name, Cbp Marine Interdiction Agent Locations, State Farm Driver Record Level 00, Articles S