Argument of the Legal Preparations Business Law Question Answer 2022

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
BUSINESS LAW
Question 1:
Issue:
The primary issue regarding this case is whether the idea of lasting without the argument
of the legal preparations between Sen, Kai, Mitsi and Luc is to be considered decent for them.
Rule:
Section 7 of the Partnership Act, 1963, deals with the law to resolve any existed
partnership. Subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Partnership Act, 1963, explains that a partnership
cannot be created on the evidence of owing any property that in joint possession, having a joint
tenancy, or any part proprietorship. Section 7(3) of the Partnership Act, 1963, explains that a
partnership cannot be formed on the shreds of evidence of gross revenues distributing interest of
any joint or common property or right from which the revenues are derived. Section 7(4) of the
Partnership Act, 1963, explains that an individual cannot become a partner by accepting any
payment or share or contingent payment which differs along with the profit from the business.
In the case of Wiltshire v Kuenzli (1945) 63 WN 47, the court held that an individual is
required to confer and exercise some controls for interpreting as a companion of any firm. In
Smith v Anderson (1880) 15 Ch D 247, it was held by the court that it is essential to perform
any business operation or any business, in demand to advise as a business.
Application:
In this given case, Sen, Kai assist their consumers in gaining finance for the development
of their business; Luc performs the task with their consumers who have experienced the solvency

2
BUSINESS LAW
problem, and Mitsi helps in providing the services regard to marketing. Everyone summed up to
$20,000 each for setting up the initial cost of the business. They share a premise taken in rent.
They started their business in several names which were not registered, and they do intend to
sharing consumers in the first instance.
In this situation, Section 7(2) of the Partnership Act, 1963, can be discussed as they
retain the tenancy of joint ownership, but such small evidence cannot classify them as partners.
As their intention was not to share their consumers, therefore they do not take any share of profit
that is common that does not receive any gross income, even on sharing the gross returns they
cannot be classified as partners under Section 7(3) of the Partnership Act, 1963. As they do not
want to share their consumers as a result they do not receive any kind of profit or share or any
kind of contingent payment variable with their business profit, in case they receive any
contingent payment or share they cannot be classified as the business partner under Section 7(4)
of the Partnership Act, 1963. This is essential to have a proper business registration formally, a
proper structure of the business and should have some control to establish a partnership firm they
will not be able to claim the legal remedies in a later stage of their business.
Conclusion:
Therefore from the above discussion, it can be concluded that the planning to continue
without a conversation about the legal arrangements in between Kai, Sen, Mitsi and Luc will not
be good for them.