October 4, 2023 Homework

.pdf

School

California State University, Northridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

408

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ProfFieldPheasant37

October 4, 2023 Homework MP Nexlevel 1) Facts: The case involves a dispute between MP Nexlevel (MP) and defendants CVIN LLC (CVIN) and Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC) regarding a broadband infrastructure construction project in California's Central Valley. MP alleged that CVIN and CENIC were in a legal partnership based on joint representations made in grant applications and on their websites. MP claimed that it relied on these representations when entering into contracts with CVIN. The court was presented with the question of whether a legal partnership existed between CVIN and CENIC. 2) Issue: The court was asked to decide whether CVIN and CENIC were in a legal partnership, as claimed by MP, based on their joint representations in grant applications and on their websites. 3) Rule: The court applied the rule that to establish a legal partnership, there must be su ﬃ cient evidence demonstrating that the purported partners held themselves out as partners and that the plainti ff reasonably relied on this representation when entering into a transaction with the alleged partnership. The court cited California Corporations Code § 16308(a) and emphasized that the conduct of the ostensible partner must be su ﬃ cient to induce a reasonable and prudent person to believe that a partnership exists. 4) Application: MP argued that CVIN and CENIC represented themselves as partners in the grant application and on their websites, implying the existence of a legal partnership. However, the court found that using terms like "partnership" or "partner" in a colloquial sense was not enough to establish a legal partnership. The court also noted that joint grant applications and collaboration on a project did not automatically indicate a legal partnership. Additionally, the court found MP's reliance on the belief of a partnership to be unreasonable. MP had entered into contracts directly with CVIN, and there was no evidence that CENIC had made any representations to MP regarding the contracts. Therefore, the court concluded that MP failed to demonstrate that it reasonably believed CVIN and CENIC were legal partners or that it relied on that belief when entering into the contracts. 5) Conclusion: The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss because the complaint lacked su ﬃ cient evidence to establish a legal partnership between CVIN and CENIC. MP's claims were dismissed as the court found that MP failed to show that it reasonably believed CVIN and CENIC were partners or that it reasonably relied on that belief when entering into the contracts. Finch 1) Facts: Je ff rey Finch filed a lawsuit against his former girlfriend, Tina Raymer, in 2008. Finch alleged that during their cohabitation/partnership, they acquired certain real and personal property together. After their separation, Raymer ordered Finch to leave the residence and refused to

divide their personal property. Finch sought an equal division of the alleged partnership property and attorney fees. The trial court held a bench trial in 2011, where Finch testified about their joint e ff orts in renovating properties and working together, which indicated a partnership. 2) Issue: The court had to decide whether a partnership existed between Finch and Raymer based on their joint e ff orts and property acquisitions during their cohabitation, even if the property was titled solely in Raymer's name. 3) Rule: Tennessee’s Revised Uniform Partnership Act states that an association of two or more persons to carry on a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not they intend to form one. The sharing of profits creates a presumption of a partnership. No single fact is conclusive in determining a partnership; all relevant facts, actions, and conduct must be considered. 4) Application: The court considered various factors, such as the parties’ statements, conduct, and writings when property was acquired, their course of conduct after acquiring the property, the use of the property in the partnership business, and the use of partnership funds. The Pack Hill Road Property, although titled in Raymer’s name, was jointly decided upon, planned, and constructed by both parties. They used joint funds for its mortgage payments and maintenance. The property was considered an asset of the partnership based on the parties’ intentions and conduct. Regarding household appliances and furnishings, the court found that they were purchased with partnership funds, making them partnership property. The court rejected the defendants' argument that property cannot qualify as partnership assets if not held for sale or profit, a ﬃ rming that the assets were indeed partnership property owned equally by each partner. 5) Conclusion: The court a ﬃ rmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the Pack Hill Road Property and the disputed household items were partnership property, with both Finch and Raymer owning a one-half interest in these assets. Problem 8 In the scenario presented, George Lawler, despite not sharing profits or losses with John Claydon, portrayed himself as Claydon's partner. They maintained a joint sign, shared o ﬃ ce space expenses, utilized joint stationery, and Lawler introduced himself as Claydon’s partner in phone conversations. All these actions suggested that Lawler presented himself as a partner to external parties. Due to this representation, a potential risk emerges wherein Lawler might be held liable for contracts and torts initiated by Claydon. If a third party relied on Lawler's portrayal as a partner and engaged in a contract or su ff ered harm, Lawler could be legally accountable for the obligations arising from those contracts or torts. This liability is a consequence of Lawler's actions and the application of the partnership by estoppel doctrine, which holds individuals responsible for how they present themselves in business contexts.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help