Smith And Roberson's Business Law: Court Case

805 Words 4 Pages
2) Harold would not succeed. It’s true that Stephanie lend the firm fifty thousand and take 10 percent interest, but she is still not a partner until two years more. Under the correct documents she is not and she never stated she was. She was not admitted yet, so she is not liable. I think it is liability of incoming partner. As stated in the textbook “a person admitted as a partner into an existing partnership is not personally liable for any partnership obligations incurred before the person’s admission as a partner”. (Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts, Len Young. Smith, and George Gale. Roberson. Smith & Roberson’s Business Law (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2009), 622.).

10. I think the judgement can’t go to neither against black because it
…show more content…
(Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts, Len Young. Smith, and George Gale. Roberson. Smith & Roberson’s Business Law (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2009), 621.). For example, you enter into a partnership and made the agreement. Your partner stole money from someone while making a business agreement by taking too much that was agreed upon. You will also be liable for that action. You didn’t know that it happened and maybe you used the money during the partnership agreement, which makes you liable.
Case 32-1 RNR investments limited partnership v Peoples first Community Bank:

Facts:

RNR is a limited partnership that was formed. The limited partnership agreement had some restrictions on the general partner authority. The general partner was restricted on the ability of handling the funds. They can spend more than the approved budget. In June 1998, RNR, through the general partner got into a construction loan agreement, note and mortgage with the bank. RNR failed to make monthly payments and the bank filed a complaint seeking foreclosure. RNR said that bank didn’t investigate to check if the general partner had authority to enter the agreement. Bank filed motion for summary judgment.

The issue at law the court is considering:

Did RNR general
…show more content…
The general partner did not get a written consent of a limited partner, when he did the agreement. He was supposed too, as stated in the textbook “The general partner shall receive the prior written consent of the limited partnership” (Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts, Len Young. Smith, and George Gale. Roberson. Smith & Roberson’s Business Law (Mason, OH: South-Western, 2009), 634.).

31-3 Horizon/cms health care corporation v Southern oaks health care, Inc.

The facts of the case:

Horizon and Southern Oaks formed a partnership and entered into several partnerships. They both agreed that horizon would manage both of the facilities, southern oak facility and royal oaks facility. Southern oaks filed a complaint stating numerals defaults and breaches of the twenty agreements they had with horizon.

The issue at law the court is considering:

Is it right that horizon and southern oaks health care partnership be dissolved?

How the law was applied in this case:

The trial court found that horizon did breach the contract for the two different partner agreements, and for the several ones they had. The partnership was

Related Documents