In the case in the text,Dixon v.Crawford,McGilliard,Peterson & Yelish,why did the court hold that the clients Dixon took with him did not impact the value of the firm's goodwill?
A)Neither Dixon nor Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.
B)The dissociated partner is compensated for value taken by his departure.
C)The evidence indicated Dixon did not intentionally steal clients.
D)Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that a firm's current clients may be evidence of the firm's "expectation of continued public patronage," but clients are not a commodity.Neither Dixon nor Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.

In the Case in the Text,Dixon V