eragon fanfiction eragon hurtstoll v xiong

stoll v xiongcheckers chili recipe

All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Western District of Oklahoma 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. Melody Boeckman, No. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. They received little or no education and could. United States District Courts. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 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. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. 9. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 1. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 39 N.E. 60252. 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. Opinion by Wm. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. We agree. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. What was the outcome? 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 1. 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. Chong Lor Xiong. Want more details on this case? 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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." 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 2nd Circuit. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. ACCEPT. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. to the other party.Id. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. 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.". 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. right of "armed robbery. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 1. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. He alleged Buyers. COA No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. "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." She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. . 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis because the facts are presented in documentary form. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. to the other party.Id. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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."). 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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.. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Docket No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Hetherington, Judge. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Western District of Oklahoma. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Please check back later. 2010). He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. 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." (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. "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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. v. Stoll v. Xiong. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. You're all set! Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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 alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 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. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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." breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Try it free for 7 days! 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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?) The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 3. 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. 269501. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Elements: 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. 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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.

Abs Certification Surgery, Articles S