Redfern Farm Services Ltd. v. Wright Michael and Kyle Wright and their father Wi

Question

Redfern Farm Services Ltd. v. Wright Michael and Kyle Wright and their father Willim Wright all carried on business as farmers in Manitoba. Each had separate farm property registered in their own name but they carried on the business of farming indiscriminately as to who owned what. They fed and pastured the animals together and carried on other aspects of their business together. The three operations were all quite intertwined. They did carry on the crop production aspects of their businesses separately, but that was only a small unprofitable part of the overall operation They also maintained separate herds of cattle and kept the profit for themselves when they were sold. Note that although the herds were separately identifiable they were fed, corralled and nurtured as one common herd. In response to questioning by a representative of Redfern Farm Services with respect to the grain operation the father said "I order the seed, I order the fertilizer, I order the spray, I order the day custom applicator, I talk to Darryl, I'm the one that does the crop rotations, I use everybody's fields as my own. I'm the one that pays the bills." The father bought the supplies used by all and owed $55,365.82 to Redfern which was not paid. Redfern sued all three. Are Michael, Kyle and William partners? What factors do the courts consider in determining whether a partnership exists? What are the consequences of a finding that there is a partnership relationship? Please answer these questions in case format. tt gatu i s Rvk 5

Explanation / Answer

Case Format:

Caption: The case is related to the business activities sharing on the farm. In this case the Michael, Kyle and William owns their own farms where they perform the business activities. They do some of the business operations together. Here the father of two sons mainly ordered the necessary required item for the business. As the William is the father of other two hence all the three is responsible for any kind of payment issue.

Course of action: The court would check the relationship status among all the three persons. By this the information comes out to be is the William is the father of other two person involved in the sue. Hence all are connected to each other in a certain way which forms a kind of relationship.

Legal Issue: The legal issue was the money was not paid by any of the son of William. So, the Redfern sued all the three people as he is aware about the relationship of the two people. The resources purchased from him is used by all the three hence he sued all of them.

Ruling:

The result of finding that the there is a partnership exist between all the three is to know the which type of partnership they have established. It would benefit in the decision making. The court would help the Redfern in getting back of money from all the three as all the three are responsible for the payment.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.