LAW346 GROUP 4 (2)

In which of the following circumstances does a partner have the power to bind the partnership firm and the other partners in contracts or transactions with third parties?

• A. When the partner acts in the ordinary course of the firm’s business and in the firm’s name.

• B. When the partner acts with the authority express or implied given by the other partners.

• C. Both A and B.

Under partnership law, when is a partner able to bind the firm and the other partners in a transaction?

• A. Only when acting outside his authority to test the firm’s flexibility.

• B. When acting as an agent and within his actual or apparent authority.

• C. Only if the act benefits the partner personally.

• D. When acting without authority, only if the act is later ratified by the other partners.

In the case of William Jack & Co (Malaya) Ltd. v. Chan Yong Trading Co., what was the court’s decision regarding the liability of partners when an infant was introduced as a partner and ordered goods but failed to pay?

• A. The infant partner was not bound by the contract because he was an infant

• B. The other partners were not liable for the infant’s actions in ordering the goods.

• C. The infant’s actions were binding on the other partners, and they were held liable for the unpaid goods.

• D. The court ruled that the infant could be bound by the contract, but the other partners could not be.

According to Section 7, a partner’s act binds the rest of the partners and the firm if all of the following conditions are met EXCEPT:

• A. The act must be within the partner’s authority.

• B. The act must be done in the partner’s personal capacity.

• C. The act must be done within the scope of the partnership business.

• D. The act must be carried out in the usual way of conducting business.

In the case of Mercantile Credit Co. v Garrod, Parkin and Garrod were partners in a business. The partnership agreement excluded buying and selling cars. Parkin sold a car to MCC to which he had no title. The court held that....

• A) Garrod was not liable as the agreement excluded selling cars

• B) Garrod was liable because MCC knew of the restriction.

• C) Garrod was liable because MCC did not know of the restriction and dealing in motor vehicles was usual for motor garage companies.

• D) None of the above

According to section 7, when a partner act within his personal capacity, it will bind other partners.

• True

• False

partners are agents of the partnership.

• True

• False

if a partner does an act that normally other partners like him would have the authority to do, the firm would be bound by his act.

• True

• False

according to normal agency principle, the principle is not bound by the act of the agent if the agent act within his authority.

• True

• False

According to Section 11 of the Partnership Act, a partner who retires from a firm does not remain liable for partnership debts incurred before their retirement.

• True

• False