I will pay for the following essay Partnership law (In Australia). The essay is to be 8 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Download file to see previous page

I will pay for the following essay Partnership law (In Australia). The essay is to be 8 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

Question 1 In the case of The Money Doctors, the business is a partnership due to the fact that the three persons had come together with the intension of carrying out a business venture and make profit. Although they did not have a written agreement, this business relationship has everything that a business partnership has and it therefore makes them a partnership. The partnership is made of Adam, Moe, and Jeff because they were the proprietors of the business. Flo, Adam’s Wife, cannot be described as a partner in this endeavour because of two main factors. To begin with, the money that she contributed to the business was a loan which was supposed to be refunded to her in the course of doing business. Secondly, her second role in the business was as an employment receiving an annual salary. As a result, although she was related to the partners and contributed to the initial capital, she cannot be described as a partner in the relationship. As seen in the decisions made in Birtchnell v The Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Limited [1929] 42 CLR 384 19291, the court decided that the actions which the partner carried out should have been in the interest of the partnership. In this case, the court predicated its decision on the fact that in a partnership, every action carried out by any of the partners must be seen as being carried out in the interest of the partnership. Therefore it found that when the accused failed to remit the profits which he had gained by acting in the capacity of a partner, he had failed to observe the law and betrayed the other partners. The profits made by the accused were therefore seen as supposed to have been shared with the rest of the partners due to the nature of the business association that existed between him and the partners. The same case appears in the Money Doctors case where the partners are acting in the interest of the partnership and the rest of the group. This therefore defines The Money Doctors as a partnership. In Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd [1974], the court decided that the business venture constituted a partnership based on three major factors which the court looked upon. First, the court quoted the fact that the partners had come together with the aim of carrying out commercial ventures. Secondly the court quoted the Partnership Act of 1892 and pointed out that since the partners intended to share the profits equally as produced by the business venture, that this then constituted a business partnership. Thirdly, the court referred to the fact that the partners were concerned with the financial stability of each other. The fact that the parties involved met these three main factors which are used to describe a partnership led to the court deciding that the relationship was a partnership. These three factors are also eminent in the case of The Money Doctors and therefore the Money Doctors can be seen as a partnership. In Kang-Kem v Paine (2004)2, the court used the same rules to determine the existence of partnership between the two persons before the court. The court used the definition of a partnership as provided in the 1892 partnership act. It also used some parameters to determine the existence of the partnership.