P Redfern edfern Farm Services Ltd. v. Wright Michael and Kyle Wright and their
ID: 346150 • Letter: P
Question
P Redfern edfern Farm Services Ltd. v. Wright Michael and Kyle Wright and their father William 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 aspectso 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 Wiliam 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.Explanation / Answer
Redfern Farm Services Ltd V. Wright
If we look at the case we will see that the case is complex because Michael Wright (Son), Kyle Wright(Son) and William Wright(Father) farm together and conduct most of the activities together but they have separate portion of land named against them. They used to work together and each one of them was entitled to do an activity for all of them, the father bought the supplies used by them and owed $55,365.82 to Redfern Farm services and the amount was not paid, in return Redfern sued all the three.
The major facts of the case was that it was difficult to distinguish between them because as the activities were collective it was considered as a single unit but that was not it was actually. The legal issue was clear, that as they functioned collectively they are partners and that was what was inferred by the court. There may be different perspectives which is actually fine but the world consider them as partners and if there is no partnership then the assets and liabilities should not be clubbed or used collectively.
Both the son and father claimed that they are not partners because they did not share any profits but the court disagreed because it feels that the business is run in a co-operative manner and even the monetary transactions were not according to a separate business pattern, hence they are partners and they together are liable to pay the amount to Redfern. The liability here is considered as a joint liability.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.