Ask a question from expert

Ask now

The Busy Bee Florist Shop and Friendly Bank

7 Pages2098 Words442 Views
   

Added on  2020-03-23

About This Document

So as to claim the presence of a partnership in the particular case, section 1, Partnership Act (Vic) provides that the elements have to be satisfied for this purpose. As a result of the circumstances, the court arrived at the conclusion that in the present case, they trust cannot be treated as a partnership because there was no association for getting on the business. Another relevant provision in section 2 of the Partnership Act (Vic) that has provided the rules that need to be applied in order to decide

The Busy Bee Florist Shop and Friendly Bank

   Added on 2020-03-23

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
1Title of the paper:Student’s name:Institution:
The Busy Bee Florist Shop and Friendly Bank_1
2Advise for Violet and Sonny After going through the sites that are present in this question, the issue arises if Violet and Sonnycan be treated as partners in Busy Bee Florist Shop and consequently if it can be said that theyare liable to Friendly Bank for the loan that was taken by the florist shop business. So as to claimthe presence of a partnership in the particular case, section 1, Partnership Act (Vic) provides thatthe elements have to be satisfied for this purpose. As a result, the parties should be carrying on abusiness, in common and for the purpose of making profit. On the other hand, if given a singleelement is missing, such relationship cannot be treated as a partnership. When determining themeaning of the term 'carrying on business' , the issue may arise if there should be somerepetitiveness of action as against a one-off action in this regard, there are several decisionsgiven by the court where the courts have stressed upon the need for repetitiveness of action orthe continuity of action. For example, in one case, the group of depositors subscribed forpurchasing the shares offered trust in media submarine cable corporations. These shares weresold to investors by the trustees, and they also provide them with certificates. Therefore the issuewas with the rest can be treated as a partnership (Smith v Anderson, 1880).If a particular relationship can be described as partnership: in order to determine if a particularrelationship can be considered as a partnership, the board shall look at the nature of the trust andalso the relationship of the persons who are involved in it. For example in the above-mentionedcase, it was noted by the court that there was no authority on part of the trustees to speculate.Similarly, the trustees did not have individual rights and obligations. As a result of thecircumstances, the court arrived at the conclusion that in the present case, they trust cannot betreated as a partnership because there was no association for getting on the business. A somewhat
The Busy Bee Florist Shop and Friendly Bank_2
3similar decision was also given in Canny Gabriel Castle Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales PtyLtd., 1974.Another relevant provision in section 2 of the Partnership Act (Vic) that has provided the rulesthat need to be applied in order to decide if a relationship is a partnership of not. But, it is worthmentioning that these rules alone cannot be used for deciding this question. Therefore, whiledealing with the issue of the presence of a partnership, the court reflects on all the conditions soas to find the real substance of the agreement. Similarly, the express and the implied intentions ofthe parties are also kept in mind for this purpose. For example, Roper J had mentioned that afterit has been discovered that the parties had the intention of doing everything that would makethem partners, the intention declared by the parties, not to become partners cannot be treated asvalid (Wiltshire v Kuenzli, 1945). Therefore, the most significant issue that needs to beconsidered is the intention of the parties, irrespective of the description of relationship mentionedby the party. For example in Stekel v Ellice (1973), the defendant had given employment to theplaintiff in his accounting firm in 1967. According to the agreement between the parties createdin 1968, the plaintiff was mentioned as a salaried partner. The agreement provided that the termof employment was in April 1969. It was also mentioned in the agreement that the capital of thepartnership business belonged to the defendant and the defendant will bear all the losses, if any.At the same time, the agreement also provided that the parties were going to enter a furtheragreement after April 1969. In this agreement, the plaintiff will become a full partner. However,the agreement was never created afterwards. In August 1970, there was a complete breakdown ofrelations between the parties. The plaintiff left the business and he also took his clients with him.Under the circumstances, the plaintiff won the declaration from the court regarding the definition
The Busy Bee Florist Shop and Friendly Bank_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Partnership Business and Creditors
|7
|2261
|182

A Possible Liability to Friendly Bank in Relation to the Busy Bee Florist Shop
|7
|2399
|158

Case Study on Partnership- Report
|7
|2142
|405

Business & Company Law: Assignment
|10
|2222
|169

Partnership Act Assignment
|5
|2088
|43

Partnership in Business Case Study
|7
|2340
|190