Jaewon Hwang
Blaw 308 Tu/Th 12:30 p.m.

Issue: Whether Paige and Clint had a partnership formed which would make Paige liable under the contract to buy the dairy cows from McGregor.

Rules: A. Partnership is formed when 1. Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not by itself establish a partnership, even if the coowners share profits made by the use of the property. 2. The sharing of gross returns does not by itself establish a partnership, even if the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in property from which the returns are derived. 3. A person who receives a share of the profits of a business is presumed to be a partner in the business, unless the profits were received in payment:
For services as an independent contractor or of wages or other compensation to an employee B. A purported partner may be found jointly and severally liable for certain transactions if a person by words or conduct purports to be a partner, or consents to being represented by another as a partner.
Application:
There is no evidence that show Paige shared in the title to the dairy farm. Also there is no evidence presented that she shared in the gross returns generated by the dairy operation or that she had a common right in the cattle. Also, Clint made no admission at trial that Paige was partner in the dairy operation.
McGregor assumed that Clint and Paige were engaged in a partnership due to the fact that they worked together on the dairy farm and are husband and wife. Just because they rand the dairy farm does not address the type of business entity under which they were operating in. The burden to show that Clint and Paige were engaged in a partnership is with McGregor. And facts available to not support McGregor’s argument.
Conclusion:
In favor of Paige Crumley.