> ============================== CFJ 2040 ============================== > > If a partnership is party to another contract, individual > members of the contract may be required, by an equity settlement > involving the second contract, to be parties to the settlement, > even if the partnership agreement does not explicitly allow > this. > > ========================================================================
For this CFJ I judge TRUE. Because obligations devolve onto a partnership's members, those obligations include becoming a party to an equity settlement. > ============================== CFJ 2041 ============================== > > If a partnership incurs contract obligations from another > contract while a particular member is a member, and that member > departs the partnership, the member in question may be required > by an equity settlement involving the second contract to be a > party to the settlement, even if the partnership agreement > does not explicitly allow this. > > ======================================================================== This CFJ I find to be TRUE, but only in cases in which the equity case is about an obligation that was incurred while the former member in question was still a member of the partnership. As the partnership still exists, it is still able to incur obligations. Furthermore when the partnership is required to become party to a settlement not all of the players that incurred the obligation have become part of the settlement. As a result, a former member is unable to escape their obligation by leaving the partnership and may be required to become party to the settlement. > ============================== CFJ 2042 ============================== > > If a partnership dissolves after having incurred obligations > from another contract, the former members may be required by an > equity settlement involving the second contract to be a parties > to the settlement. > > ======================================================================== The obligation has been devolved onto its members or it wouldn't be a partnership. As this is the case, as long as the former members still exist as players, they themselves have incurred these obligations. Whether or not the partnership still exists, those former members who are still players are still under the obligation. I find this CFJ to be TRUE. I also note that this is a very similar situation to when a player deregisters while still under obligation. By this judgement said player is still obliged to fulfil their obligation, but they potentially have limited means to do so as a non player. The main difference here is that though the Player of the partnerhsip no longer exists, the essence of the partnership still exists (that is its basis, or feet if Murphy's latest proposal passes).
