Special2

Q1: The type of partnership that the plaintiff and defendant have established is a Term partnership because it envisages a 2 year term plan, and they have jointly pooled their resources for the operation of partnership business. It is for a profit venture that they have jointly set stakes in the firm and they would have shares profits upon mutual consent.
The Uniform Partnership Act states a partnership as "an association of 2 or more persons . . . to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. . . No one factor is alone determinative of the existence of a partnership." In this case, one of the partners claimed that Maslbenden’s participation was just that of a financier and not a partner. However, the Court held that Maslbendens involvement in the business supported the claim that he was a partner. (Lupien v. Malsbenden: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1984).
Q5: Yes, the capital contribution by each partner is a significant factor in dividing the assets. The Court would like to know the amounts invested by each partner in order to assess the mode of splitting the firm’s assets. This is because partners may not have brought capital into the business in equal proportions, and therefore, it would not be in legal consistency to divide the assets equally.
Verdict: I agree with the Judge’s ruling. This is because, in the absence of written contract, the conduct of the parties would bind the partners. In this case, Jeannie Smithers, the defendant wishes to quit the partnership and have it dissolved. In the event there was a written covenant, it could bind the parties. Even a verbal contract is a contract, but the terms and conditions would be as determined by the parties, which may change from time to time. Moreover, only a written partnership agreement could bind the partners in their relationships with other partners and