You are here: / / Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Spec...
,

Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specificity

In finding that an oral partnership agreement was dissolvable at will because no “definite term” or “particular undertaking” was included, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, wrote:

…[W]e believe that [the] complaint lacks a fixed, express period of time during which the enterprise was expected to operate. Instead, the complaint alleges a flexible temporal framework: the parties were to solicit investments for an indefinite length of time; conduct an open-ended (possibly two-year) search for an unidentified business in an unknown business sector or industry; secure additional capital investments over the course of an unspecified period of time; and then purchase and operate the enterprise for an indeterminate duration (perhaps four to seven years) until a liquidity event would hopefully occur. Since the complaint does not set forth a specific or even a reasonably certain termination date, it does not satisfy the “definite term” element of [Partnership Law] section 62 (1) (b). * * *

Furthermore, when the entire scheme is considered, the alleged sequence of anticipated partnership events detailed in the complaint are too amorphous to meet the statutory “particular undertaking” standard for precluding unilateral dissolution of a partnership. The stages of the plan … were to: (1) raise money; (2) identify a business to buy; (3) raise more money to purchase the business; (4) “operate the business to increase its value”; (5) “achieve the liquidity event”; (6) “sell the business”; and (7) secure profit from the sale. But these objectives are fraught with uncertainty and are less definitive than the declarations referring to specific industries that have been found to be inadequate by other courts *  *  *.  In the absence of a definite term of duration or a particular undertaking to be achieved, the partnership agreement at issue, however well-intended, was dissolvable at will by either partner under Partnership Law § 62 (1) (b). Gelman v Buehler, 37, Ct.App. 3-26-13

 

 

You might also like
general business law 627-a, which requires that a health club have an automated external defibrillator and a person qualified to use it does not impose tort liability on the club for failure to use it.
A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY COVID-19 (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MURDER AFTER IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS; HIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED CONTESTED FACTS REQUIRED A TRIAL (CT APP).
After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.
Error to Deny Missing Witness Jury Instruction on Ground Such Testimony Would Be Cumulative—Only Testimony of a Party’s Own Witnesses Can Be Deemed Cumulative, Not, as Here, the Testimony of the Opposing Party’s Witnesses
Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial Information Clarified

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Experts’ Failure to Address Proximate Cause Precluded Summary Judgment Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim