For Your Data Apcar Investment Partners Vi, Ltd. V. Gaus Representative Brief
May 30, 2016
Edit
Apcar Investment Partners VI, Ltd. v. Gaus representative brief summary
161 S.W.3d 137 (2005)
CASE FACTS
The partners argued that they were protected from private liability nether the Texas Revised Partnership Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b-3.08 (Supp. 2004-2005). The lessor countered that the lease obligations were non incurred acre the partnership was a registered express liability partnership as well as hence that the partners were personally liable.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the judgment of the lawsuit courtroom as well as remanded the motility for farther proceedings.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law



161 S.W.3d 137 (2005)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant lessor sued appellee lessees, a partnership as well as its 2 partners individually, for breach. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Harris County, Texas, lawsuit courtroom granted summary judgment for the partners. The lessor sought review.CASE FACTS
The partners argued that they were protected from private liability nether the Texas Revised Partnership Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b-3.08 (Supp. 2004-2005). The lessor countered that the lease obligations were non incurred acre the partnership was a registered express liability partnership as well as hence that the partners were personally liable.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom agreed amongst the lessor, asset that a partnership had to live on inward compliance amongst the registration requirements inward art. 6132b-3.08(b) for its partners to live on protected from liability nether art. 6132b-3.08(a)(1).
- The partnership had non filed a renewal application.
- Therefore its condition expired iii years earlier the partnership entered into the lease.
- The partnership was non a registered express liability partnership when it incurred the lease obligations, as well as the partners were non protected from private liability.
- Although the partners had signed a guarantee that express their personal liability to the get-go 2 years of the lease term, the upshot of their liability nether the guaranty was unlike from the upshot of their liability nether the lease itself.
- The guaranty did non boundary their liability nether the lease.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the judgment of the lawsuit courtroom as well as remanded the motility for farther proceedings.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law