Chaivers V. Epsco Inc Case Brief

766 Words4 Pages

Ami Patel ACT-6100-002 IRAC Assignment #3 August 2,2017 Chavers v. Epsco, Inc., 02-866. 98 S.W.3d 421 (2003) Facts: Epsco, Inc., staffing company filed a law-suit against Chavers Welding and Construction(CWC) for not providing timely payment. CWC was owned by Gary Chavers and his sons, Reggie Chavers and Mark Chavers. As the company was bankrupt, the plaintiff filed the complaint against the owners, the father, and the two sons, claiming them to be the partners in the business. Based on the evidence by estoppel, the trial court found the sons liable for the company. Not happy with the verdict, Chavers then applied to the Appeal Court. Issue: The issue here is whether Mark and Reggie could be considered the owners of CWC as shown by some evidence …show more content…

The court cited examples when the sons have shown to be the partners, which include, [1] The fax Credit References, which had Mark and Reggie as the partners and Gary as the owner of CWC. Also, the credit application has Gary’s signature on it, which he claims to be done accidentally. [2] The Fax Cover Sheet, which had all their names on it, announcing themselves as the partners to the public. [3] The Epsco Personnel Credit Application, that had the business marked as a partnership among the three members. [4] The checks to Epsco, which were signed by Reggie. [5] The Business Card, which had Gary’s and Reggie’s name on it, to which Gary argued to have been printed incorrectly. [6] The Dealership Application, from Sukup Manufacturing had Reggie’s signature on it. On all these evidence, the partners were trying to hold themselves back to the public about the …show more content…

Jax Restaurant, C3-02-413, 679 N.W.2d 165 (2004) Facts: Jax Restaurant operated as a partnership between Nicole Moren and her sister Amy Benedetti. After picking up her son, Remington, from school, Nicole helped Amy in the kitchen due to the absence of a chef. Her husband, Martin Moren was on his way to pick up Remington. Meanwhile, Nicole took her son with him in the kitchen. During this course, accidentally her son got some serious injuries. Remington being minor, Mr. Moren filed a complaint against Jax Restaurant, who in turn filed a third-party complaint on Nicole for paying the compensation to Remington for injuries caused due to her negligent actions. Issue: The issue here is whether the restaurant has a right to collect the compensation from the partner, Nicole Moren. Rule: According to Uniform Partnership Act of Minnesota, partners have rights to collect compensation from the partnership, but the reverse is not authorized. Any act other than the regular course of business is considered accountable only if the other partner authorizes it.

Open Document