Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Sharpe v Carswell 1910 |
Group running a fishing boat and one person was killed aboard. Case brought by the widow. Using working compensation act 1996 she was trying to argue the husband was an employee . Carswell argued that because he had shares he was a partner. The court held that ownership of a share was not enough to make you a partner. |
|
|
Clark v Jamieson 1909 |
cargo boats and clark is drowned and the window claims compensation. Clark was paid a share in gross returns but he did not contribute to the running capital of the boat. Not a partner employee. |
|
|
Heddle Ex v Marwick & Houston's Tr (1888) |
Example of the presumption that the new firm take liabilities of the old firm. Here the new partner did not contribute capital supporting the idea the old partnership was continuing with a new person. The judges state that if the person had been adding capital the old partnership would not technically been continuing and they would have reached a different decision. |
|
|
Thomson and Balfour v Boag & Son |
he new partner contributes capital and the court uses this to say that this is not the old firm carrying on as before.l show that this is happening in practice this is tricky so you might want to look in practice. |
|
|
Welsh v Knarston |
hey were partners when you instructed the firm, they left and it is now nothing to do with them. The court does not agree here and they are held liable.The retiring parties are under a continuing obligation. |
|
|
Mair v Wood |
fishing boat, partner a decides to remove floor boards in the deck of the boat and partner b falls into the hole onto the propeller to his severe injury. Is the firm liable to compensate the injured partner b. The court held the firm is not liable and section 10 does not operate. The judge explains that individual partners are agents to the outside world, but between themselves then are principals to one another. |
|
|
Flynn v Robin Thompson |
a partner of a firm of solicitors in an unusual approach to client satisfaction, saw fit to punch his client. The client was not permitted to sue the firm since hitting clients was clearly not an act in the ordinary course of business. When one partner injures another in the course of business as when one fisherman hurt another with a boat hook in mair v wood no vicarious liability attacks to the partnership. |
|
|
Blisset v Daniel |
Expulsion of partners s25. blissett receive notice that he has been expelled. Now blissett argued with von(anther partner) , to engage vonss son as a manager. even though the son is inexperienced and no qualifications. Blissett objects. bliss is then expelled, the written contract does have a power to expel. There is a clause that states this can be done without any reason and without holding any meetings. The court held that this is not acceptable and that this power had to be exercised in good faith and for the good of the partnership as a whole so the power is abused here. |
|
|
Finlayson k Turnbull |
Management of partnership affairs. law firm where some partners were moving to a new office, and they took documents to the new place that they shouldn't have. They did not own the files and causes inconvenience by taking them away. good done in good faith. remedy for breach fiduciary duty are more harsh than normal remedies. The frim get damages and recover the profits made by the new firm. |
|
|
Hugh Stevenson & Sons v AG für Cartonnage-Industrie |
Dissolution by illegality. partnership rendered illegal by the outbreak of war renders illegal by the outbreak of war with germany. one party was germany the other english. However after the war the german partner was compensated because the english company continued to business with capital from the german company. |
|
|
Eadie v McBean's Curator Bonis |
The court refused the petition as happened where the partner suffering from mental incapacity had the option not the participate in the management of partnership |
