Finally, the agreements stated hours of work and holidays for Strazella and Spitzer and required Chaiken to hold and distribute all receipts. c. Explain which arguments should prevail.
| ♥ 0 |
Chaiken entered into separate but nearly identical agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barbershop. Under the terms of the “partnership” agreements, Chaiken would provide barber chairs, supplies, and licenses, while the other two would provide tools of the trade. The agreements also stated that gross returns from the partnership were to be divided on a percentage basis among the three men and that Chaiken would decide all matters of partnership policy. Finally, the agreements stated hours of work and holidays for Strazella and Spitzer and required Chaiken to hold and distribute all receipts. Chaiken entered into separate but nearly identical agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barbershop. Under the terms of the “partnership” agreements, Chaiken would provide barber chairs, supplies, and licenses, while the other two would provide tools of the trade. The agreements also stated that gross returns from the partnership were to be divided on a percentage basis among the three men and that Chaiken would decide all matters of partnership policy. Finally, the agreements stated hours of work and holidays for Strazella and Spitzer and required Chaiken to hold and distribute all receipts. Chaiken entered into separate but nearly identical agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barbershop. Under the terms of the “partnership” agreements, Chaiken would provide barber chairs, supplies, and licenses, while the other two would provide tools of the trade. The agreements also stated that gross returns from the partnership were to be divided on a percentage basis among the three men and that Chaiken would decide all matters of partnership policy. Finally, the agreements stated hours of work and holidays for Strazella and Spitzer and required Chaiken to hold and distribute all receipts. |
Explanation
Partnership is the coalition of more than two people to take over a business for profit as co-owners. The label of the partners is not the sign of a partnership agreement. Instead the parties should have an intention and explain the terms in the agreement. All the above mention points explain that Individuals ST, SP, and C are united in a partnership.
Sample Response
Evidence supporting that Individual ST and Individual SP are partners with Individual C:
There is agreement under the terms of partnership.
They provide their tools and employment.
All the gross profits produced by the business are going to be shared among them.
Explanation
Individual ST and Individual SP are only employees of Individual C.There are no independent agreements in a partnership agreement, all the partners share the profit and loss equally.All partners in the partnership have control over the decisions and actions of the partnership but both Individuals ST and SP have no control.
According to the Partnership Act, all partners in a partnership equally to earn more profit and there is no time limit. But, here,Individual C has set the time limit for both Individuals ST and SP.
Sample Response
Evidence supporting the argument that Individual ST and Individual SP are not partners but only employees of Individual C:
Independent agreements with each barber
Sharing of gross receipts only and not of profits
No control of Individual ST and Individual SP
Setting of working hours by Individual C for Individual ST and Individual SP
Explanation
There is a difference between anemployee and apartner. Partnership is defined under the Partnership Act; it also explains the duties and liabilities of being a partner. The following factors show that Individual C does not have a partnership agreement with either Individual ST or Individual SP:
Exclusive rights are reserved by Individual C to determine the policy of the partnership.
The assets get distributed upon the ending of the partnership, if the partnership liabilities are fulfilled.
No restriction on working time limit.
Distribution of net profits.
Sample Response
The second argument triumphs over the first one. Individual ST and Individual SP are employees of Individual C since all the evidence is supporting this argument. This argument is also supported by the rules and guidelines of the Partnership Act.
