{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

chapter 26, case 1

chapter 26, case 1 - damages resulting from the breach 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ADM 3360 A Kevin Spence 4476793 Chapter 26- Case 1 In the case, Angus has clearly breached the terms of the partnership agreement with his accounting firm Harty & Old. As stated in the firm’s partnership agreement, each partner was required to give at least 12 month’s notice in writing to the firm that they were leaving the firm. Another condition in the agreement was that when a partner left the firm, they were not allowed to enter into any business that was in direct competition with Harty & Old for a period of five years. Angus broke both of these conditions. He entered into negotiations with a rival accounting firm, Sandersons, and reached an agreement with them to join their insolvency department. When this agreement was reached, he informed Harty & Old and left immediately. Harty & Old commenced action against Angus and they are likely to succeed since Angus was in breach of the partnership agreement. As a result of Angus acting in a manner that is contrary to the partnership agreement, he may be liable to compensate the other partners for any
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: damages resulting from the breach. 1 Harty & Old also commenced action against the rival accounting firm that hired Angus, Sandersons. In this case, it would be harder for Harty & Old to succeed. This is because Sandersons probably was not aware of any partnership agreement that Angus was bound to. Sandersons therefore did not know that Angus needed to provide 12 months notice to Harty & Old before he pursued another job and that he could not enter into business with a firm that was in direct competition with Harty & Old. Since Sandersons was unaware of any agreement, they believed that Angus had the apparent authority to negotiate a new contract with their firm. This fact would make it hard to prove that Sandersons was partly to blame for causing Angus’s breach of contract. 1 J.E. Smyth, D.A. Soberman, A.J. Easson. The Law and Business Administration in Canada. Eleventh Edition. Page 571...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 2

chapter 26, case 1 - damages resulting from the breach 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online