Page v. Page (Cal 2d. 1961) (Traynor)
FACTS
Partners were brothers. For years they had lost money in their business. Their major
creditor was a corporation wholly owned by the plaintiff. Once the business started
making modest amounts of money, the plaintiff wanted to dissolve the partnership.
Note that the plaintiff would have benefited from the dissolution because as a creditor
he would have been entitled to the assets of the partnership.
HOLDING/RULES
Traynor ruled that the partnership was “at will” and therefore a party could
unilaterally dissolve it. Nonetheless, the power to dissolve could not be undertaken in
bad faith and therefore the court should refuse to recognize a proper dissolution.
Note: Can’t square Page and Owen except on the equities.
FACTS
Partners were brothers. For years they had lost money in their business. Their major
creditor was a corporation wholly owned by the plaintiff. Once the business started
making modest amounts of money, the plaintiff wanted to dissolve the partnership.
Note that the plaintiff would have benefited from the dissolution because as a creditor
he would have been entitled to the assets of the partnership.
HOLDING/RULES
Traynor ruled that the partnership was “at will” and therefore a party could
unilaterally dissolve it. Nonetheless, the power to dissolve could not be undertaken in
bad faith and therefore the court should refuse to recognize a proper dissolution.
Note: Can’t square Page and Owen except on the equities.
No comments:
Post a Comment