key cases pdf

key cases pdf - Lecture 2: Partnership - Smith v Anderson:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture 2: Partnership - Smith v Anderson : Carry on A trust was created for investment purposes to purchase shares and debentures in a number of companies. The trust contains more than 20 people, including Smith, as an investor. Smith applied to wind up the “trust” due to the thought that it was not a trust, but an illegal partnership which exceeded the max. number of 20 people. Court: not a partnership as there were no intention to repeat the venture, and thus no “ carry on ” element. - Checker Taxicab Co Ltd v Stone: not in common. A driver hired a taxi car from the owner of a garage, who incurred all the expenses in running the car, and pay a % of earnings as rental fee to the owner. The court held that they were no partnership formed due to no mutual rights and obligations btw the owner and the driver, there were distinct and separate businesses. - Re Megavand: Labels aren’t important!! Lender is a partner due to the sharing of Profit and LOSSESS, examine partnership books, receive quarterly statement, loan is not repayable until partnership dissolved. - AM Marketing Pty Ltd v Howard Media Pty Ltd: mere sharing profit not partnership D agreed with P to share 50% of its profits as pays to marketing consultant fees, had a joint account which P had control; later P sued D for overdue invoice. D held they were in partnership, thus no debt owing. Court: no partnership due to failure to satisfy acting in common test: D was the only signatory to the joint account Only D has control and access to internet banking Thus no mutuality Also, D+P prepared separate invoices and no partnership tax returns re lodged.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Significance: mere sharing profit not partnership; share of losses stronger partnership - Duke Group Ltd v Pilmer: People do sth tgt to get profit does not mean they are in partnership. - Miah v Khan: actual vs contemplative partnerships The partnership fell apart b4 the business is actually open to trade; court held partnership exists, there is a business that has been carried on in common with a view of profit, and they incurred expenses and acquired assets. Significance: a business can be “carried on” b4 it opens for trade - Goudberg v Herniman Associates: NOT carried on! Contemplated partners. Goudberg and Williams were acting in common and with a view of profit by taking research and investigation on their business plan; however, the business had never been carried on. i.e. no further actions were taken by the parties. The Herniman Associates failed to sue Goudberg for unpaid architectural service fees, which Williams was the contractor, as G is not a partner of W. - Llyod v Grace, Smith & Co: Jointly + several liability for torts s10 An innocent partner faces potential unlimited personal liability for tor even if the partner is not the party to blame - Mann v Hulme: misapplication of money/property s11 - Lynch v Stiff: liability by holding out/estoppels s14 - Chan v Zacharia: Fiduciary Relationship They were partners in medical practice. After dissolution of the partnership, but
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

key cases pdf - Lecture 2: Partnership - Smith v Anderson:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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