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

Caption: Redfern Farm Services Ltd. Vs Wright

Cause of Action - Non-payment of dues of $55,365.82 for the supplies provided by the plaintiff to the defendants

Statement of Facts - The defendants are farmers in Manitoba. Each defendant has a separate farm property registered in their own name and they maintain a separate herd of cattle. However, the operations of defendants are intertwined and various business aspects are common. The cattle are fed and pastured together without regard to the source of the feed, and the farmers share labor. With regard to the grain operations, one of the defendant, William is responsible for all aspects including crop rotation, seed selection, and purchase of fertilizers and pays all the bills. Wiliam has bought supplies used by all and money is owed to the plaintiff.

Legal issues and Rules -

Plaintiff perspective: Defendants run operations of the farm jointly. Farming is done by defendants without discriminating ownership area and animals are pastured and fed collectively.Though plaintiff engaged in dealing with one of the defendants (William), however, plaintiff's supplies are utilized by all the defendants. Plaintiff perceives that all three are in partnership and liable for payment of dues.

Defendant perspective -There was no written agreement or partnership agreement between defendants. They have their own assets in the form of farmland and cattle. Defendants feel they are operating separately and do not have any relation to each other. Their farms are separate and liability to pay plaintiff lies with one defendant i.e. William.

Ruling and Reason: The defendants are in a partnership and all three are liable to pay for the supplies to the plaintiff. In a partnership, all owners have personal liability to clear dues arising out of business obligation. The court notes that though all three defendants own separate assets, however, the assets of each defendant's business, farms and cattle are operated indiscriminately. The operations are run jointly and co-operatively by defendants giving rise to a partnership.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

---

---

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