On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Quazie wrote: >>> This CFJ seems to be FALSE. Why should a member of a partnership >>> incur obligations when the partnership's obligations devolve onto em. >> >> Um, because that's very the definition of obligations devolving onto em? >> Or how would you define it? -Goethe >> > > If I am already incurring an obligation because I am a member of a > partnership, why should I individually also incur an obligation? When > a partnership incurs an obligation, it is devolved onto all members, > not just one in particular, so if for example Human Point Two had to > give 4 shillings to Goethe due to an obligation it incurred as a > result of another contract, this obligation could be fulfilled either > by HP2 giving Goethe 4 shillings or Quazie and OscarMeyr giving Goethe > a total of 4 shillings for HP2.
It's not "also", it's "instead of", so you're right that the obligation could be fulfilled either way. But having the responsibility "devolve" properly means that if HP2 "breaks" (e.g. has no money, or the contract is amended to refuse to pay the money), individual members may still be held responsible (in the equity sense) for restoring the 4 shillings. Otherwise equity is meaningless. An equity judge can decide which of the members is responsible for HP2 incurring the debt, but only if that member is a party to the settlement. -Goethe
