According to Hillman (1997), partnership is a form of business whereby two or more people share ownership including the profits as well as losses. Due to the fact that business concepts are defined broadly by different states across the globe, persons can include groups, individuals, corporations and companies; partnerships are significantly adaptable in various forms and vary in complexities. In most cases, partners are independent and jointly liable to all debts due to the fact that they share profits. In the U.S., the creation, organization as well as dissolution of this kind of businesses is strictly governed by state laws such as the Uniform Partnership Act, Agency Law among others. However, a partnership may be dissolved as in the result of mutual consent, when one of the partners retires, dies or becomes insolvent. However, if the remaining partners agree to continue, then the business becomes a sole proprietorship. In this case, where Jones and Smith entered into a partnership for the purpose of raising cattle and hogs, and the two partners were supposed to share profits and liabilities equally, it is clear that Jones is not entitled one-half of the value of the two buildings. This is due to the fact that Smith had not donated the land in writing to the partnership (Hillman, 1997). Therefore, Jones can only claim the proceedings from the sale of the two buildings and not two buildings while resting on a land legally owned by Smith and his wife. From the above case, it is clear that all properties that are privately owned should be kept away from the partnership unless it is done in writing.
As argued by Ong (1999), in the U.S., a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is mostly based upon the laws of a given state law. However, at least a federal statute can give rise to fiduciary liability in cases where a person fails to act solely to the benefit of the other party, fails to give all the relevant information, fails to exercise all the required level of care as to a matter within scope of the relationship among others. In this case, it is clear that neither of the two parties, neither an aunt nor the nephews, should be allowed to threaten each other. Initially, this was a family business and was left on the hands of Joe and Sue Hill by the parents for their sustainability. From this case, it is clear that the cousins, Sue as well as her husband depended on Joe’s Hamburger Joint for their sustainability. Should the hotel be sold to the aunt, Joe and Mike would miss the $900 paid to them per week. On the other hand, it is clear that the aunt and her family would not be able to sustain themselves in case the firm is sold. As seen in the case of Industrial Development Consultants v Cooley , it is clear that all the business is in the interest of all parties. Therefore, no sale should be made to any party (Hamilton, 2004).
The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) is a law in the U.S., which was added as a Title VIII of the CCPA (Consumer Credit Protection Act). According to Larson (2011), the main purpose of this law is the elimination of abusive practices regarding collection of debts by the consumers as well as the promotion of fair debt collection among others. As indicated in the law, communication with the customers by the debt collector should have a validation period of 30 days (approximately one month). For the case of Donna Russell, the debtor, the 30 days period for her to decide whether to consent a claim had not elapsed, hence Equifax A.R.S should not post this collection to her file. It is evident that this law safeguards the U.S citizens from unscrupulous debt collectors such as Equifax A.R.S, especially in this time when the level of foreclosure is due to the global financial crises (“Federal Trade Commission”, n.d).
Tenants in common, also referred to as tenancy in common, is one of the means to own a property or hold title by at least two individuals (Sherman & Media, n.d). Unlike the joint tenancy, where rights of survivorship are divided equally among all the owners when one of the partners dies, tenancy in common transfers the interest to the entire heir named by the owner. In this case, Green Acres is owned by all the three survivors, Joan, Beauregard and the secretary Fawn, as they are named as the beneficiaries. Generally, this law protects the interests of survivors. For instance, in cases where no will is written, the interests are handled as per the state laws (Sherman & Media, n.d).