Case Essay

769 Words4 Pages
Issue(s): The case involves individuals working together under the business name ‘Magic zillions’, where the business was not making profit thus they hired another individual Bella who was given managerial duties and power to advice clients. In the due course of this work, one of the partners causes a certain Mr. Laurent to incur injuries in the firm’s building. As a result, using the Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) (PA) and The common law, the issues for determination include whether or not a partnership exist among the four individuals, namely [Ed], [Jake] [Charles] and [Bella], and whether or not it is the firm can be held liable for Mr. Laurent’s injuries. Law . Under the statute; The Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) (PA) * S 5 Meaning of Partnership * S 13 Liability of the firm for wrongs * S 20 The liabilities of incoming and outgoing partners Under the common law, key case laws are * Smith v Anderson(1880) * Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd (1974) * M Young Legal Associates Ltd v Zahid (2006) * Polkinghorne v Holland (1934) Application The legal status of partnership is identified under s5 of the PA and in the case law Smith v Anderson. S5 of the PA clearly states that “a partnership is a relationship which is established and exists between persons “carrying on a business in common with a view of profit” [facts]. The court held in Smith v Anderson that partnership has to exhibit an important element of ‘carrying on of a business’. This means that a business should engage in continuous and repetitive tasks contrary to isolated transaction. In the case Canny Gabriel Castle Jackson Advertising Pty Ltd v Volume Sales (Finance) Pty Ltd it was held to be “a partnership, even though it was a one off venture in respect of a single undertaking” [slide 34] reason behind this is parties became

More about Case Essay

Open Document