Rundles, Kreiger, and Larson formed a partnership to breed and ...

[shofmannx20]

Rundles, Kreiger, and Larson formed a partnership to breed and show horses. Rundles and Kreiger each contributed 25,000 to the partnership. Larson contributed four (4 ) horses valued at 25,000. The partnership agreement provided that the partners would share profits equally. When the horses failed to perform as expected, Rundles and Kreiger decided to reduce Larson's share of the profits. Larson claims that this decision must be unanimous to be binding. How will the case be decided?

Question 2

The tax assessor for Clark County sent a delinquent notice to Rob Newton at the property address. There was no response to the notice of delinquency. The assessor had a different address for Mr. Newton but sent it only to the property address. Rob challenged the tax sale for lack of notice.
 A)As long as Clark County complied with its required procedures the sale is valid.
 B)Under recent court rulings, Clark County cannot ignore the alternate address.
 C)The sale cannot be set aside as long as the sale brought a reasonable amount for the property.
 D)None of the above

[honnalora]

Answer to Question 1

Judgment will be for Larson. Although a decision by the majority of the partners in a partnership will control in matters concerning the ordinary operations of the firm business, such a decision is not binding if it contravenes the partnership agreement. In this case, the agreement provided that the partners would share profits equally. The decision by Rundles and Kreiger is therefore not effective, since is not based on the unanimous consent of all partners.

Answer to Question 2

B

[shofmannx20]

Wow, this really help

[vickybb89]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it