Recent orders
Under the Partnership Act 1891 or the common law
ILAC
ISSUES:
Under the Partnership Act 1891 or the common law:
Was Christian a valid partner in the general partnership?
If so, did he have to get the other partner’s consent before he made a transaction that will involve the partnership?
Can Fantastic file a suit to claim the balance?
If so, does he bring file the suit against one partner or the partnership?
LAW: Business Law – Partnership
Statute: Partnership Act 1891 (Qld)
Chapter 17.50: Subsistence of a partnership
Chapter 17.57: Creation of a business with a view to profit
Chapter 17.220: Implied terms in a partnership
Chapter 17.350: Relationship of partners to third parties
Common Law:
M Young Legal Associates Ltd v Zahid (2006) WLR 2562- it is possible for a person to be a partner even though they do not have a claim to a share of the profit.
Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 541- each partner is an agent of the firm and their other partners for the purpose of the business of the partnership.
APPLICATION
As per Chapter 17 (Partnership Act), the onus of proof, the plaintiff, Fantastic, must establish the following elements in order to prove that he deserves the balance:
Christian is a valid partner in the general partnership.
He transacted with Christian on the basis of apparent authority.
IF this is proved by the plaintiff then the defendant Guisepi Café will have to create a defense and the possible remedies will be evaluated.
This case poses a number of legal issues that one has to consider before reaching an effectual elucidation. One of the core issues involved in this case is the determination of the kind of entrepreneurial relationship that Allan, Harry and Christian share. With regard to this concern, one is poised with the challenge of whether the party elucidates a proper partnership. The legal sub-issue is whether the Christian forms a valid partner of the partnership. Under a partnership the parties have to voluntarily come together to run the business with the mutual objective of making profits. The partnership can be formed through oral or written accord. The final issue is the determination of whether Fantastic can claim the balance of $ 4,000 or not.
The law applicable to this case is the Partnership Act of 1891. Under chapter 17 of the Act, the term ‘partnership’ is defined to mean any form of business relations that subsist between persons with the core view of generating profit. In this case, Harry, Allan and Christian arrived at a mutual consent to commence the restaurant business since they all shared the passion of the hospitality and generating profit. All the individuals in the business consented to the idea voluntarily without any kind of coercion. This falls within the realm of a partnership.
Chapter 17.50 proceeds to state that a partnership agreement begins with the implementation of a business plan. The three individuals satisfied this rule since they had agreed that they would venture in the hospitality field (to be precise open up a restaurant). This proved to be an effective business plan that the parties had designed. The contentious issue in this case was to ascertain whether the act committed by Christian was done so under the realm of a partner or an agent. Chapter 17.57 of the Act lifts the veil of the contentious issue by stating that it is possible for an individual to be a partner even though they do not claim a share to the profits generated. This imperative was upheld in the ruling of M Young, in this case the Court of Appeal passed the decree that the recipients of a fixed-sum payment could be partners in the firm. This was the case with Christian. Initially, during the agreement phase Christian made it clear that he would only be a partner if he was excluded from contributing to the business’s capital and shares of its profit. The mere fact that a person does not share the capital generated from the business does not exclude one from being a valid partner.
Since it has been established that Christian is a valid partner, the next step is to ascertain the rights and duties of the partners. Chapter 17.220 states the various rights and duties of the partners and it is worth noting that every partner in the agreement is entitled to basic management of the partnership. This is subjected to variance with regard to the specific agreement between the partners. In this case, Christian was charged with the responsibility of making purchases for the business, supervision of the activities of Harry and Allan and to give advice. With due regard to the purchase of the commodities from Fantastic, Christian was acting within the realms of his authority and the third party was aware of the fact that Christian was a partner. The realization of the fact that Christian was a partner is attributed to the fact that he faxed the letterhead of the firm to Fantastic. The act was not ultravires. Christian acted as an agent of the other partners thus the act was legally binding to all of them (chapter 17.350). In the Construction Engineering case the court passed the decree that where a partner has no authority to legally bind a co-partner and the third party is unaware of this situation such a transaction shall not be legally binding on a co-partner.
Fantastic can bring a claim for compensation of the balance of $4,000 and any other damage collectively to the co-partners and Christian since the third party and the partnership and not the former entered into the agreement and Christian as a sole trader. The Partnership Act under chapter 17.350 stipulates that an act done by one of the partners under the partnership is legally binding to the co-partners. Furthermore, the third party has the right to assumption of authority when dealing with a partner in a partnership relationship.
Under the Boardwalk An Unsatisfying Telling of the Decline of Atlantic City by Bryant Simon, Book Response
Name of Author:
Course:
Name of Tutor:
Date of Submission:
‘Under the Boardwalk: An Unsatisfying Telling of the Decline of Atlantic City’ by Bryant Simon, Book Response
The book Under the Boardwalk: An Unsatisfying Telling of the Decline of Atlantic City presents an overview of the decline of Atlantic City that experienced a dramatic shocking waning in prosperity. The author Bryant Simon explains a gradual popularization of a city that once had a number of flavors that captured many. Back in 1920, the city made a valuable contribution in its visual power based on the extent of its appealing stylishness hotels, excellent streets, and marvelous restaurants. Nonetheless, Simon describes the socio-economic set up of the previous Atlantic City as self-sustaining based on the typical interaction rates of its inhabitants. Surprisingly, a multidecade period was enough to ‘wither’ Atlantic into an ugly meager municipality. For this reason, there could be possible motives that contributed to the collapse of the city.
First, Simon relates the downfall of the popular Atlantic City to a steady collapse of its middle class. Before, a visit to the city was a “performance of personal experience” whereby its population offered to support the reputation of their wonderful home (35). The City’s peak decades had a classy vocational facility that could support tourist from all corners of the world. However, Simon claims of the change of the America vocation based on the complex background of the ‘whites’ racial discrimination. Again, there were overwhelming controversies ranging from classy attitudes through high incidence of treatments; different races lived on their own. Repeatedly, the book cites several occurrences of racial conflicts that hindered interpersonal cooperation. Simon goes ahead in outsourcing more facts behind the decline on claims provocative gambling at casinos, high greedy levels, and impunity that deterred people from supporting the enriched socio-economic developments. All the same, the city depended on its visitors who could not bear with the discontenting policies.
Nevertheless, the city experienced high level of segregation compelling most of its middle class group to relocate to other urban centers. In the late 1960s, the level of commitment towards development discouraged the public’s efforts towards development (12). Apart from the complex experience of urban challenges, the city declined due to unreasonable changes in trade and commerce behavior. Most visitors became convinced that success was a lost glory. Technologically, multiple alterations from a high standard mechanical drive to a totally changed face drove away vocational and leisure desires. Altogether, the city witnessed a historical emigration that deprived local businesses to lose customers. There were also high levels of economic struggles especially in the local banks that later resorted for financial borrowing to support the town.
Ultimately, the reasons behind the fall of Atlantic City reveal much about urban development. Simon’s narration in the book clearly shows irresponsibility of citizens towards maintaining prosperity. Boardwalk of Dreams: Atlantic City and the Fate of Urban America is a classical woeful description of urban historic downfall that generally outlines the fate of America’s urban setup experiencing multiple controversies. Specifically, it suggests that an urban setup is such a critical environment thus, resistant to societal discrepancies. The author achieves in narrating a nostalgic tale of unmanaged urban setup based on picture presentations of the decline of Atlantic City. Relatively, Simon’s analysis of the decline of Atlantic City is substantially acceptable on grounds that most of his arguments are plausible.
Work Cited
Simon, Bryant. Boardwalk of Dreams: Atlantic City and the Fate of Urban America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006. Print.
Under the Act of 1891
ILAC
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
Date
ILAC
ISSUES:
Under the Act of 1891
Was Christian’s presence in the business in harmony with the Act?
As a legal partner of the business, did Christian have to get permission from his colleagues before purchasing the chairs?
Is it possible for Fantastic to file a case against the business to claim his balance?
Should Fantastic file a suit against Christian alone or the whole company
LAW: Business Law – Partnership
Statute: Partnership Act 1891(Qld)
17.50: Partnership continuation
17.57: Business created with the aim of making profit
17.220: Oblique conditions in a partnership
17.350: Partners relation to third party
Common Law:
M Young Legal Associates Ltd v Zahid (2006) WLR 2562- one can be a partner even if this person does not want profit share from the business.
Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 541- Partner manages the business and the other partners for the rationale of the partnership business.
APPLICATION
Chapter 17 of the Partnership Act of 1891, elements kept by Fantastic to demonstrate that he should get his balance:
Legality of Christian in the business
Was it worth getting into business deal with Christian.
The basic issue in this case is how: Harry, Allan and Christian are determined to create a business relationship. Considering their type of business, is it partnership kind of business or not? In partnership kind of business, parties involved must run the business together and they must all be enthusiastic to run the business. The partners can make an agreement amongst themselves orally or in writings. Lastly, is it possible for Fantastic to claim the remaining balance of $ 4,000 or not from the business?
Law applicable to matters in the case is the Partnership Act of 1891. Chapter 17 explains partnership as a business between two or more people aiming at making profit. Their aim of the business was profit generation and the kind of agreement is partnership.
Chapter 17.50 of the act states that, for a business to run smoothly and grow the business must have a plan. The partners fulfilled the rule in chapter 17.50 of the act by having a business plan.
When Allan and Harry asked Christian to join them in their business, Christian accepted but on condition that he will not contribute any capital nor share the profits of the business but must be entitled to a yearly retainer. Chapter 17.57 answers this case as it states that, people can be partners in business with or without contributing any capital or claim a share of the profit made. The verdict of M Young Legal Associates Ltd v Zahid (2006) WLR 2562 depict the vital part of the issue. Whether or not Christian contributed capital does not bar him from being a partner.
Chapter 17.220 shows that the duties and privileges of partners. Each member of the partnership business is allowed to conduct major management of the business. Christian had the duty of purchasing for the business and supervising Allan and Harry. Chapter 17.350 of the Act: Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Hexyl Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 541. Support Christian’s act of buying chairs from Fantastic. In order to approve the fact that Christian was part of the business, the letter he faxed to Fantastic had the business’s letter head.
Fantastic can therefore claim his balance from the business because Christian’s act was not against the Partnership Act of 1891.