stoll v xiongshallow wicker basket
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 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. . 1. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. September 17, 2010. The UCC Book to read! 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. 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. 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 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 107879, 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. 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. right of "armed robbery. 1. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Advanced A.I. Melody Boeckman, No. 107,880. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 8. 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. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . App. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Want more details on this case? The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 2010). 7. 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. 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." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". letters. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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.". Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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." 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 he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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."). at 1020. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. September 17, 2010. 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.". We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Opinion by WM. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 60252. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada.
Operation Finale Hanna Pregnant,
Cars With Factory Hidden Compartments,
Articles S