Partnership is a form of business formed by agreement of parties which may either be express or implied agreement. In a partnership business, the partnership is liable for all business debts. In addition, each individual recognized as a partner is also personally liable of the partnership debts. The obligations of the partnership are binding only if the parties show evidence of the agreement either as express or implied. When such evidence exists, the parties will be liable for the debts of the partnership. Did Rob, Lulu, Ned and Mr Money bags sign agreement of partnership or have an implied agreement?
The first thing in making the judgment is to determine whether each of the accused had a binding agreement to the Romulus that would make …show more content…
We ask ourselves the question; did Rob, Ned, Lulu and Mr. Moneybags have implied authority to grant Romulus to enter into contract with Santa Rita Bank and Bank of Money? Implied authority is authority which a court concludes that the principle partners intended to give to the` other partners even though they did not use any words that would confer such authority. To determine if people who have not specifically agreed to become partners are nevertheless partners, the court will look at any relevant evidence to determine what the intent of the parties is. If the court finds out that a person is entitled to a share of the business’ profits then it will be presumed that such a person is a partner in that business even if there is no express agreement. This presumption however, is rebuttable upon providing evidence that a person received his share for some reasons other than being a co-owner of the business. Such evidences include; when the profit share represents wages or salary, when the profit share represents rent for the use of property and when the share represents interest on a loan. Rob was entitled to hourly wage and additional $15 per hour. On top of this, he was to receive 10% of profits made by Romulus. Lulu is also entitled a 10% share of any profits made on top of a rent of $500 per month. On the other hand, Ned is entitled to 10% of profits of Romulus partnership as an interest to the loan he lent the partnership. In this case, Lulu and Rob will be presumed as partners while Ned will be able to rebut the presumption through a written document signed by him and the two principals. Mr Moneybags will not be presumed as a partner since he is not entitled to any
The first thing in making the judgment is to determine whether each of the accused had a binding agreement to the Romulus that would make …show more content…
We ask ourselves the question; did Rob, Ned, Lulu and Mr. Moneybags have implied authority to grant Romulus to enter into contract with Santa Rita Bank and Bank of Money? Implied authority is authority which a court concludes that the principle partners intended to give to the` other partners even though they did not use any words that would confer such authority. To determine if people who have not specifically agreed to become partners are nevertheless partners, the court will look at any relevant evidence to determine what the intent of the parties is. If the court finds out that a person is entitled to a share of the business’ profits then it will be presumed that such a person is a partner in that business even if there is no express agreement. This presumption however, is rebuttable upon providing evidence that a person received his share for some reasons other than being a co-owner of the business. Such evidences include; when the profit share represents wages or salary, when the profit share represents rent for the use of property and when the share represents interest on a loan. Rob was entitled to hourly wage and additional $15 per hour. On top of this, he was to receive 10% of profits made by Romulus. Lulu is also entitled a 10% share of any profits made on top of a rent of $500 per month. On the other hand, Ned is entitled to 10% of profits of Romulus partnership as an interest to the loan he lent the partnership. In this case, Lulu and Rob will be presumed as partners while Ned will be able to rebut the presumption through a written document signed by him and the two principals. Mr Moneybags will not be presumed as a partner since he is not entitled to any