Law Assignment Curtin

Question 1.

In order to make the decision that whether Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic is liable for the debt incurred by Adam, we have to view the case under the perspective of common law statutory law and The Partnership Act to judge whether there is an existence of partnership between Adam and Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic. The Partnership Act section 7 (1) state the definition that: “ …Partnership is the relation which exist between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit” (The Partnership Act 1895). There are three essential elements from this section that Adam needs to satisfy to be a partner of Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic, which are: carrying on a business, in common and with a view of profit. Although The Partnership Act do not define “carrying on”, however it can be obtained from precedent cases (Smith v Anderson 1880), it is clear that Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic accompanied the question of repetition, continuity. The evidences reveal that Adam was a business graduate, he does not involve in the ordinary course of business of the clinic and the fact that he invest in the clinic does not make him become a partner because Adam does not have “in common” in carried on the business. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicates that Adam shares any mutual right and obligations (Am Marketing Pty Ltd v Howard Media Pty Ltd 2010). The profit of the partners is sharing between Tim, Kathy and Martin. Due to lack of agency relationship and mutuality under The Partnership Act of WA section 13, Adam does not satisfy the second elements. The last element is “with a view to profit”, this statutory criterion require that the business must have objective of acquisition of financial gain, which does not mean that Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic must be successful in making profit. The fact shows that Bentley Physiotherapy Clinic accompanied the last requirement due to the fact that it has gain successful and reputation. Further analyse under the rules...