On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
I see what you are saying. I may have to judge TRUE on that first CFJ. I'll be assessing this more.
