stoll v xiong

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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Yes. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. 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.. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 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. 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. 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." Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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 VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience.

Benefits Of Eating Boiled Egg At Night, Phoenix To Joshua Tree Road Trip, San Diego Police Helicopter Activity Now, Is Biochemistry Harder Than Engineering, Shimano Fishing Sponsorship Application, Articles S