legal issues
Issues
1.Does a partnership exist between Ed, Jake, Charlie and Bella?
2. Are Ed, Charlie and Bella also liable for the lawsuit against the firm by their client Mr Laurent.?
2. If so how far responsible are the other partners for Jakes mistake?
3.If no other partner liable, what excludes them?
4.Are there any defences to any of the members of the firm from being liable to the lawsuit?
Law: Partnerships
Partnership Act 1891 (QLD)
Nature of Partnership
Determination of existence of partnership
Joint venture partnership
Liability of Incoming partner
Dissolution of partnerships
Company Law
Khan v Miah [2000] 'Nature of partnership'
Cox v Carlson [1916] 'Joint venture and partnership' - 'how the partnerships are created and what sustains them'
Hamerven Pty Ltd v Ogge [1996] 'Liability of retiring partner' - does a recently retired partner have any liability to the losses or profits of the firm?'
Application
"The rule s that persons who agree to carry on a business activity as a joint venture d not become partners until they actually embark on the activity in question" (text, 328). This is in regards to Bella who claimed she had no liability towards the lawsuit against the firm as she had only been working there a short while and was not at work the time the accident happened. Bella had however been working there with a "view for profit" (Text, 328) which happened to be the activity in question.
With this same question in mind t has been stated that " it is possible for a person to be a partner even though they do not have a claim to the share of the profit" (text,328). Bella had not contributed any capital upon joining the firm but still took on the job of a partner at the firm through assistance.
Unlike the case of "Cox" (text,331) whereby each party was found with different liablities for their parts of the joint venture "Magic Zillions" is a different case as they were continuin with the busness in an effort to get a profit.
"Where there
1.Does a partnership exist between Ed, Jake, Charlie and Bella?
2. Are Ed, Charlie and Bella also liable for the lawsuit against the firm by their client Mr Laurent.?
2. If so how far responsible are the other partners for Jakes mistake?
3.If no other partner liable, what excludes them?
4.Are there any defences to any of the members of the firm from being liable to the lawsuit?
Law: Partnerships
Partnership Act 1891 (QLD)
Nature of Partnership
Determination of existence of partnership
Joint venture partnership
Liability of Incoming partner
Dissolution of partnerships
Company Law
Khan v Miah [2000] 'Nature of partnership'
Cox v Carlson [1916] 'Joint venture and partnership' - 'how the partnerships are created and what sustains them'
Hamerven Pty Ltd v Ogge [1996] 'Liability of retiring partner' - does a recently retired partner have any liability to the losses or profits of the firm?'
Application
"The rule s that persons who agree to carry on a business activity as a joint venture d not become partners until they actually embark on the activity in question" (text, 328). This is in regards to Bella who claimed she had no liability towards the lawsuit against the firm as she had only been working there a short while and was not at work the time the accident happened. Bella had however been working there with a "view for profit" (Text, 328) which happened to be the activity in question.
With this same question in mind t has been stated that " it is possible for a person to be a partner even though they do not have a claim to the share of the profit" (text,328). Bella had not contributed any capital upon joining the firm but still took on the job of a partner at the firm through assistance.
Unlike the case of "Cox" (text,331) whereby each party was found with different liablities for their parts of the joint venture "Magic Zillions" is a different case as they were continuin with the busness in an effort to get a profit.
"Where there