Answer:
Situation:
P and J are doing a business of selling ties with professional insignia. P finds a profitable business idea of selling shirts in online. The issue is that P has to permit J for this great opportunity.
Answer:
Yes, P has to permit J for this great opportunity, if it relates to their business. If P like to start a own business, he need not permit J for this great opportunity.
Answer:
Case:
BS and A are partners in a real estate partnership firm. They used to withdraw equal salary from the partnership firm. S moved to Florida to settle his divorce case. S returned after one year. Meanwhile, A increased his salary in lieu of additional work done by him in the absence of BS.
Relevant provision:
According to UPA (Uniform Partnership Act), partnership is the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit whether or not they intend to form a partnership. In determining the partnership, the Court considers the following:
• The organization must intend to make profit.
• Agreement to sharing of profits and losses among the partners.
• Management of business.
• Oral or written agreement.
If there is any change in the partnership terms then it must be amended.
Conclusion:
In this case, both of them are entitled to receive equal salary. Hence, A cannot receive additional salary from the partnership firm without changing the partnership agreement. Therefore, the action of A was not valid.
Answer:
Case:
S sued ML partners for the notes payable to him. S was the creditor of ML partners. M was the partner at ML partner. S asked the sum from M but did not approach to the partnership firm. M denied giving the amount due to S.
Relevant provision:
The partnership is liable to pay creditors from selling the properties of partnership firm. If the firm is unable to pay the creditors from the amount received from selling the properties of business then the partners will bring the remaining balance from their personal properties in profit sharing ratio. If any partner becomes insolvent then his share will be borne by other partners.
Conclusion:
S will be paid from the properties of ML partnership. If the amount due to S exceeds the sum received from cash in hand and selling the properties of firm then partner will be personally liable. Hence, the argument of M is valid. S should approach to ML partnership first then to M.