Kang-Kem v Paine [2004] NSWSC 3 (Australia)

The case here is referred to as whether the business carries on by Kem Weichoreak Kang-Kem, complainant, and Marilyn Jean Paine, defendant, was carried on in common and whether the partnership exists. gauge Barrett J compared the evidence coming out of this case to s.1(1) of the league Act 1892 that defines partnership as the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a imagination of profit and also compares to s.2 of the Act that determines the rules for the existence of partnership. Barrett J take that it was the plaintiff who wished to open the quietusaurant and expressed it to the defendant in November 1991. He also told the defendant he had no silver because of the failed business venture that had ca apply him to become a bankrupt. She kept him, give his personal expenses and when the plaintiff expressed an invade in open up a restaurant, she was prepared to religious service him with the venture as it would be in the interests of twain of them if he could find something at which he could prosper financially.

Having reviewed the evidence concerning both the Junction restaurant and the Lake restaurant, Barrett J also found that the plaintiff represented the Junction restaurant to have been owned only when by the defendant until nearly 1997 and the proprietorship, in terms of amusement of operating rights passed to him thereafter at a lower stick an arrangement which included a sublease of the exposit, the defendant rest the lessee at all times. After that change, he represented himself as sole owner of the Junction restaurant. Also t he defendant alone(predicate) was the lesse! e of the premises at the Lake and was the licensee under the Liquor Act. The funds used to give the Junction restaurant were, to the extent of $100,000, provided by... If you want to provoke a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay