NAME OF THE GROUP___Sky Blue________________________________

DATE____13/4/2021_____________________
CHITTAGONG INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY
BUS 360/ CASE -03
SPRING- 2021

1. Mr. Rahman, a clerk in Mr. Khan’s business, entered into a verbal agreement with Mr. Khan for a share
of profits and loss in the proportion of 1/6 to Mr. Rahman and 5/6 to Mr. Khan. It was further agreed
that the building in which the business was carried on should remain the property of Mr. Khan. Mr.
Rahman alleges that he is a partner and claims dissolution of the firm and an account of asset. Mr. Khan
denies the partnership and alleges that Mr. Rahman is only clerk. Decide the case with justification.

Decision: Mr. Khan’s denial is justified.

Analysis: it is unlikely to conclude the existence of partnership between Mr. Khan and Mr. Rahman as the
partnership arises from a contract not from their status. Moreover, merely their agreement to share the profit and
loss is not sufficient to establish the partnership between them. This is more so as they have employer-employee
relationship. Thus it can be fairly concluded that as there is no clear contract as to the partnership between them,
Mr. Rahman and Mr. Khan are unlikely to be called partners.

2. Kasfia , a minor, was admitted to the benefits of a firm consisting Reeti, Rahima and Tasnuva, three
adult partners. Within six months after attaining majority Kasfia gives public notice that she has become
a regular partner. But other three partners refuse to take her. Is their refusal justified? Decide the case.

Decision: Their refusal is justified.

Analysis: First of all a minor cannot be a full-fledged partner. Also there is no consent among the partners for
Kasfia to become a partner.

3. A & B are working in partnership as chartered accountants. C gives Tk. 10,000 to A for investment in
some good security. A didn’t say anything to his co-partner B about it and misappropriated money. C
files a suit on the firm for recovery the money. Will C succeed?

Decision: C will succeed and C can recover the money.

Analysis: If any partner do wrongful act in business which is cause of loss to Third party.Than the firm is
equally liable for this omission. A did misappropriate the money which is unknown to B.Here C can suit on the
firm for recovery money.
 4. A, B and C are partners. An order is placed with D for supplying a certain quantity of goods to the firm
on credit. Before D could supply the goods C died. D supplied the goods after C’s death, being totally
ignorant about the fact of C’s death. A and B subsequently become insolvent. Can D make C’s estate
liable for his debt?

Decision: No, D can’t make C’s estate liable for his debt.

Analysis: Generally, under section 45, the estate of the deceased partner is not liable as he died before the
supply was made even the supplier was not aware of the news of his death. However, since the agreement was
concluded before his death, only the supply was done later on, then there is room to argue the deceased partner
is liable as the agreement was done before his death and it is a binding contract.

5. A & B are partners in a firm. The partnership deed, inter-alia provides that partnership can be terminated
“by mutual agreement only”. B wants to terminate the partnership? Can he do so?

Decisions: No B can’t terminate the partnership.

Analysis: A partnership can be terminated by mutual agreement only; B cannot terminate the partnership all
by himself.

NAME ID SIGNATURE
Asmina Karim 18201006 Asmina
Anika Anjum Nabila 18201076 Nabila
Junaid Chowdhury 18201060 Junaid
MD. Moniruddin Chowdhury 18201071 Moniruddin
Afia Jahin 18201106 Afia
Ashikul Alam Abir 17101021 Abir