Case Study 36-1 – Leoff vs S&J
According to our text, a partnership is “an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.”
(Kubasek & Brown, 2016)
In the case of Leoff v S&J Land company, the evidence presented that these two entities were partners is the 2006 Management Agreement entered into by both parties. The agreement states that “Leoff is entitled to 30% of all profits or losses of S&J” and that “if S&J suffered a loss rather than a profit, then pro-rata share must be accounted for.” (Kubasek & Brown, 2016)
Another piece of evidence used in the determination of partnership status is the Colorado statutory providing exceptions to the presumptions that if you share in the business’s profits then you are presumed to be a partner. The evidence that they were partners is clear. Given all the evidence presented in this case, It’s my belief that Leoff may not have wanted the losses accounted for and that if the company had made a profit, he would be asking for his 30%. There are so many ethical, moral and legal reasons why parties in any partnership should no try to avoid their responsibilities. The universalization test asks us to consider what the world would be like
if our decision were copied by everyone else. Applying the universalization test to the case of Leoff v S&J
the plaintiff, in this case, did not take into consideration how the suit filed would affect others. What he should have asked himself “is what I am about to do something that, if others followed my example would bring about positive changes. References
Kubasek, N. K., & Brown, N. M. (2016). Dynamic Business Law 4th Edition. In Dynamic Business Law 4th Edition
(p. 818).
