Issue
The issue is what, if any, legal rights Will has against Grace for exceeding the spending limit, and whether she is going to have to pay the $30,000 for the imported marble. In addition, whether he has any legal rights against Grace for using Flip Master’s client list to find potential customers. The other issue is what if any, legal rights Will has against Jack for accepting bribes from potential buyers to ensure that their offer is accepted by Flip masters. Law
A joint venture can be distinguished from a partnership on the basis that it is a separate venture for each of the parties were they share profits individually. Parties do not act as agents of each other and therefore do not owe a fiduciary duty to each other. In Cox v Coulson, …show more content…
An important characteristic of a partnership is that every partner is a principal as well as an agent for the other partners. The agency relationship that exists in a partnership creates express, implied or ostensible authority. The partners have an implied authority to sell and purchase property for the partnership as well as enter into contracts on behalf of the firm. The partners also owe mutual fiduciary duties to each other. These duties include the duty to render accounts, accountability for private profits, and a duty not to compete with the …show more content…
In Scott and Momentum Productions Pty Ltd v Lewarne, Scott approached Lewarne with a proposal to contribute $300,000 for a 15% share in the business and profits of 15%. Although the intention of borrowing the money was to complete the business deal, Scott used the money to discharge a mortgage. He transferred the property into his name and used the property to secure a loan, which he used to purchase the business premises. The business premises had significant structural problems and this affected the profitability of the business. Lewarne was concerned about the management of the business and wanted to extract himself. The question was whether the $300,000 was a debt to the partnership or whether Scott breached the fiduciary duty. The court held that Scott did not have authority to use the $300,000 to discharge the mortgage and Scott should account to the partnership for the $300,000. The court observed that a partner who breaches his fiduciary duty to the other partners by misapplying the partnership funds should be held accountable for the
The issue is what, if any, legal rights Will has against Grace for exceeding the spending limit, and whether she is going to have to pay the $30,000 for the imported marble. In addition, whether he has any legal rights against Grace for using Flip Master’s client list to find potential customers. The other issue is what if any, legal rights Will has against Jack for accepting bribes from potential buyers to ensure that their offer is accepted by Flip masters. Law
A joint venture can be distinguished from a partnership on the basis that it is a separate venture for each of the parties were they share profits individually. Parties do not act as agents of each other and therefore do not owe a fiduciary duty to each other. In Cox v Coulson, …show more content…
An important characteristic of a partnership is that every partner is a principal as well as an agent for the other partners. The agency relationship that exists in a partnership creates express, implied or ostensible authority. The partners have an implied authority to sell and purchase property for the partnership as well as enter into contracts on behalf of the firm. The partners also owe mutual fiduciary duties to each other. These duties include the duty to render accounts, accountability for private profits, and a duty not to compete with the …show more content…
In Scott and Momentum Productions Pty Ltd v Lewarne, Scott approached Lewarne with a proposal to contribute $300,000 for a 15% share in the business and profits of 15%. Although the intention of borrowing the money was to complete the business deal, Scott used the money to discharge a mortgage. He transferred the property into his name and used the property to secure a loan, which he used to purchase the business premises. The business premises had significant structural problems and this affected the profitability of the business. Lewarne was concerned about the management of the business and wanted to extract himself. The question was whether the $300,000 was a debt to the partnership or whether Scott breached the fiduciary duty. The court held that Scott did not have authority to use the $300,000 to discharge the mortgage and Scott should account to the partnership for the $300,000. The court observed that a partner who breaches his fiduciary duty to the other partners by misapplying the partnership funds should be held accountable for the