Partnership Law - ACCA Corporate and Business Law (LW) (ENG)
17 Comments
H
HK·
Hi Mike,
Hope you're well.
In a partnership is it still the case that there can't be more than 20 partners as that latest study text and notes from Kaplan don't say this. Kindly confirm
M
MikeLittleTutor·
Hi Haroon
Yes, so far as I can determine, the limit is still 20. There are exceptions for other professional firms (beyond accountants, solicitors and members of the stock exchange). For example, estate agents, estate managers, architects ....) do have a variety of restrictions like, as an example, at least 75% of the principals must be members of an appropriate professional organisation, like the MNAEA or RIBA.
OK?
A
Alexander·
Hi Mike,
Was this limit not abolished back in 2002 by The Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in Partnerships etc.) Order 2002?
M
MikeLittleTutor·
Hi Alexander. Thanks for this - yet another little bit of legislation that slipped under my radar! There's just the hint of a clue in the title of the 2002 Order!
I appreciate you pointing this out to me
Thanks
For anyone watching this lecture, the 2002 Order removed the upper limit for the allowable number of partners in a partnership. It is MOST IMPROBABLE that this will ever be asked in an ACCA law exam.
The lecture video, at around 5 minutes 35 seconds, is therefore incorrect insofar as it relates to the upper limits on partnership numbers
M
Mercy·
Please I can't watch the videos any longer. The video is not playing
K
khadkaujjwal·
Is it helpful for 2021? As it seems old. I think this lecture is from 2018. Need help
B
Barb·
Entire lecture still perfectly valid
A
Asher·
Brilliant lecture. Thanks
M
M·
Dear Sir,
Please help me on this question in Kaplan Study text under Trading Partnerships case of Mercantile Credit Co v Garrod (1962).
I don't understand why the contract was binding on G when P and G had entered into a partnership to let lock up garages and repair cars NOT to buy and sell cars.
Thank you Sir.
M
MikeLittleTutor·
Could the innocent third party have known the details of the partnership agreement? Did the activity of buying and selling cars fit nicely into what could reasonably be expected of a business that repairs cars?
That innocent party had acted in good faith with a partner acting apparently on behalf of the firm, apparently in the course of business and, in that situation, the acts of every partner bind the firm and the other partners
The only real exception is where one partner exceeds his / her authority and the other party is aware of that excess
OK?
Incidentally, this should have been posted on the Ask ACCA Tutor forum and not as a comment on a lecture!
M
M·
Thank you Sir, understood.
M
MikeLittleTutor·
You're welcome
A
Ana·
The full link to the case Evert v Williams is below
Wonderful! Just brilliant ... as also are the two articles that preceded the Evert v Williams article (Advice from a Mexican father to his son and Advice from a Mexican mother to her daughter)
Hope you're well.
In a partnership is it still the case that there can't be more than 20 partners as that latest study text and notes from Kaplan don't say this. Kindly confirm
Yes, so far as I can determine, the limit is still 20. There are exceptions for other professional firms (beyond accountants, solicitors and members of the stock exchange). For example, estate agents, estate managers, architects ....) do have a variety of restrictions like, as an example, at least 75% of the principals must be members of an appropriate professional organisation, like the MNAEA or RIBA.
OK?
Was this limit not abolished back in 2002 by The Regulatory Reform (Removal of 20 Member Limit in Partnerships etc.) Order 2002?
I appreciate you pointing this out to me
Thanks
For anyone watching this lecture, the 2002 Order removed the upper limit for the allowable number of partners in a partnership. It is MOST IMPROBABLE that this will ever be asked in an ACCA law exam.
The lecture video, at around 5 minutes 35 seconds, is therefore incorrect insofar as it relates to the upper limits on partnership numbers
Please help me on this question in Kaplan Study text under Trading Partnerships case of Mercantile Credit Co v Garrod (1962).
I don't understand why the contract was binding on G when P and G had entered into a partnership to let lock up garages and repair cars NOT to buy and sell cars.
Thank you Sir.
That innocent party had acted in good faith with a partner acting apparently on behalf of the firm, apparently in the course of business and, in that situation, the acts of every partner bind the firm and the other partners
The only real exception is where one partner exceeds his / her authority and the other party is aware of that excess
OK?
Incidentally, this should have been posted on the Ask ACCA Tutor forum and not as a comment on a lecture!
https://mentalfloss.com/article/92239/strange-case-everet-vs-williams-when-two-highwaymen-took-each-other-court
:-)
It's when you read cases like this one that you begin to see what fun the law paper is!
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101065086231&view=1up&seq=382
As Mike used to say, isn't law fun!