For Your Data Gateway Spud Sales V. G.B. Investment Co. Illustration Brief
December 31, 2020
Edit
Gateway Potato Sales v. G.B. Investment Co. case brief summary
170 Ariz. 13
SYNOPSIS: Appellant creditor sought review of a determination yesteryear the Superior Court of Maricopa County (Arizona), which granted summary judgment inwards favor of appellee, a express partner of accused debtor. The creditor argued that the express partner was liable to the creditor beyond the extent of its investment pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319.
FACTS:
-The creditor sold goods on credit to the debtor, a express partnership.
-When the debtor defaulted, the creditor sought recovery from the express partner.
-The express partner was granted summary judgment on the grounds that nether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319(a) it was non liable for the debts of the debtor beyond the extent of its investment.
ANALYSIS:
-On appeal, the courtroom noted that the creditor had produced an affidavit yesteryear the debtor's president describing several ways inwards which the express partner exercised command over the functioning of the partnership, around of which did non autumn inside the protected areas listed inwards § 29-319(b), the "safe harbor" provision of the express partner liability statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that § 29-319 imposed liability on a express partner whenever the express partner exercised substantially the same command every minute a full general partner, fifty-fifty if the creditor had no contact amongst the express partner together with no cognition of the express partner's control, together with that the affidavit raised substantial issues of cloth fact sufficient to title the creditor to a trial.
RULES:
-A express partner may popular off liable for the obligations of the express partnership nether certainly circumstances inwards which the express partner has taken business office inwards the command of the business.
-If the command of the express partner is substantially the same every minute command yesteryear the full general partner, the express partner may live on held liable beyond his investment fifty-fifty if he had no contract amongst the creditor.
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the grant of summary judgment inwards favor of the express partner.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the tiptop grades inwards your police describe schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
170 Ariz. 13
SYNOPSIS: Appellant creditor sought review of a determination yesteryear the Superior Court of Maricopa County (Arizona), which granted summary judgment inwards favor of appellee, a express partner of accused debtor. The creditor argued that the express partner was liable to the creditor beyond the extent of its investment pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319.
FACTS:
-The creditor sold goods on credit to the debtor, a express partnership.
-When the debtor defaulted, the creditor sought recovery from the express partner.
-The express partner was granted summary judgment on the grounds that nether Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319(a) it was non liable for the debts of the debtor beyond the extent of its investment.
ANALYSIS:
-On appeal, the courtroom noted that the creditor had produced an affidavit yesteryear the debtor's president describing several ways inwards which the express partner exercised command over the functioning of the partnership, around of which did non autumn inside the protected areas listed inwards § 29-319(b), the "safe harbor" provision of the express partner liability statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29-319.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that § 29-319 imposed liability on a express partner whenever the express partner exercised substantially the same command every minute a full general partner, fifty-fifty if the creditor had no contact amongst the express partner together with no cognition of the express partner's control, together with that the affidavit raised substantial issues of cloth fact sufficient to title the creditor to a trial.
RULES:
-A express partner may popular off liable for the obligations of the express partnership nether certainly circumstances inwards which the express partner has taken business office inwards the command of the business.
-If the command of the express partner is substantially the same every minute command yesteryear the full general partner, the express partner may live on held liable beyond his investment fifty-fifty if he had no contract amongst the creditor.
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the grant of summary judgment inwards favor of the express partner.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the tiptop grades inwards your police describe schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?