Partnership Law: Case Study
Part a) Legal position enabling expulsion of Annabel from the partnership.
Step 1:-
The problem at hand deals with Partnership law as governed by the Partnership Act 1895 in the absence of a written agreement. Principles of Common law and Equitable principles also apply.
Partnership Act governs the partnership of ‘Health Plus’.
Sec. 30 of the Act, as it relates to misappropriation of partnership property.
The application of Sec. 39 Partnership Act 1895 and the Fiduciary Duty breached.
Supreme Courts position to dissolve the Partnership due to absence of an agreement.
Step 2:-
The partnership of Health Plus is a verbal agreement. Hence it is governed by the Partnership Act 1895. Firstly it is evident that a Partnership exists as there is an intention to create and carry on a business with a view to profit. There is an element of Agency, where one partner acts on the behalf of the other. A sharing of profits, liabilities and joint ownership of partnership property establishes a clear existence of a partnership as per Sec 8 PA.
Has there been a misappropriation of funds as was discussed in Mann v. Hulme (1961). Case deals with the receipt of money by an agent/partner and the scope of authority conferred.
A partner in his role owes a fiduciary duty to his other partners, to act in good faith and in their best interests, Helmore v. Smith.
Law v. Law and the Sec 39 PA, emphasizes the need to render true accounts and all other information to any other partner.
A partner not governed by a written contract cannot be expelled by a majority vote (S. 35(1) PA )
Dissolution by court can be invoked as under S. 46(c) PA – in instances where the court is moved to infer that the carrying on of business will be affected by the actions of the guilty partner.
A reconstitution of the partnership can take place on the dissolution of the old partnership and a new constitution being put in place.
Step 3:-
Annabel is a partner of Health Plus for all intents and
Step 1:-
The problem at hand deals with Partnership law as governed by the Partnership Act 1895 in the absence of a written agreement. Principles of Common law and Equitable principles also apply.
Partnership Act governs the partnership of ‘Health Plus’.
Sec. 30 of the Act, as it relates to misappropriation of partnership property.
The application of Sec. 39 Partnership Act 1895 and the Fiduciary Duty breached.
Supreme Courts position to dissolve the Partnership due to absence of an agreement.
Step 2:-
The partnership of Health Plus is a verbal agreement. Hence it is governed by the Partnership Act 1895. Firstly it is evident that a Partnership exists as there is an intention to create and carry on a business with a view to profit. There is an element of Agency, where one partner acts on the behalf of the other. A sharing of profits, liabilities and joint ownership of partnership property establishes a clear existence of a partnership as per Sec 8 PA.
Has there been a misappropriation of funds as was discussed in Mann v. Hulme (1961). Case deals with the receipt of money by an agent/partner and the scope of authority conferred.
A partner in his role owes a fiduciary duty to his other partners, to act in good faith and in their best interests, Helmore v. Smith.
Law v. Law and the Sec 39 PA, emphasizes the need to render true accounts and all other information to any other partner.
A partner not governed by a written contract cannot be expelled by a majority vote (S. 35(1) PA )
Dissolution by court can be invoked as under S. 46(c) PA – in instances where the court is moved to infer that the carrying on of business will be affected by the actions of the guilty partner.
A reconstitution of the partnership can take place on the dissolution of the old partnership and a new constitution being put in place.
Step 3:-
Annabel is a partner of Health Plus for all intents and