Issue: Whether in Partnership or not

Welch and Others v Jess (1976)
Facts:
Plantiff and defendant agreed to share prizes and expenses of fishing holiday.
Defendant then refused to share prize money
Plantiff sued claiming partnership
Held:
No partnership as did not satisfy s4(1)(a) it was not for the purpose of carrying on a business
However, contract between parties and defendant had to share prize money. Not partnership

Harrison v Franich (2007)
Facts:
Ms Franich and Mr Franich entered agreement to purchase a stallion
Agreed to create a syndicate and sell shares in order to produce sufficient profit
Ms Franich made a capital contribution of $65000 for 50% share
Remaining shares sold at a profit
Arguement and dispute
Held:
Main purpose was to syndicate the horse for profit therefore purchase was part of the business plan.
Capital contribution by Ms Franich clear signal that parties intended to create a partnership
Court to determine by looking at parties objectively determined intentions
Largely hobby element does not prevent venture to be partnership provided main purpose is for profit. Partnership

Cox v Coulson (1916)
Facts:
Defendant arranged performance in his theatre with one Mill, who provided actors and scenery
Defendant provided the theatre and lighting
Playbills were proportioned between them both
Plaintiff was struck by a pistol during performance who then sued defendant
Issue: Whether defendant was a partner with Mill, who was in charge of the actors
Held:
Defendant not a partner s5 For partnership to exist the net profits should be shared, not the gross receipts Not partnership

Stekel v Ellice (1973)
Facts:
Parties entered into agreement providing plaintiff would be a 'salaried partner' for certain period, then enter another agreement whereby plaintiff would become a full partner.
Second agreement