31 5月 assignment代寫：《合夥企業法》
(第1題規則應用)現在來回答第一個問題，Ringer是否也處於負債情況下，考慮合伙的要素。根據《合夥企業法》，當合夥各方的意圖明確或隱含時，合夥企業就成立了。現在假設已經成立了普通合夥企業，那麼可以說所有四個合夥人都必鬚麵對因合夥企業而產生的債務。根據1891年合夥法案(Qld) (PA)第8條的規定，林格是合夥人，因此負有責任。 (發布2條規則申請)約翰獲實際明示授權，可清繳最高達50,000元的款項。雖然約翰違反了與合夥人達成的協議，但其他合夥人仍需承擔責任。如果約翰的收購成功了，那麼所有其他合夥人也會分享他們的利潤，林格也會得到他的聘用服務。
因此，在《合夥企業法》(Partnership Act)的指導下，公平地說，購買所產生的債務將必須由所有成員承擔。現在林杰聲稱他沒有參與日常管理，也沒有從業務中平等分享利潤。然而,根據再保險Duddock案(1879年)和我年輕的法律協會有限公司訴Zahid和1891年合夥法的8部分(昆士蘭)(PA)的聲明,鈴聲是一個伴侶,即使對方不參與企業的日常管理,即使他們沒有對利潤貢獻一個平等的主張,他們仍將承擔責任。 (發布3條規則申請)George在開展業務時，如果使用的是以前的客戶，則可能會對QLD採取競爭立場。這樣就違背了他的受託責任。這可以從Scotts and Momentum Productions Pty Ltd .訴Lewarne案和1891年《合夥企業法》第33條中理解
(Issue 1-Rule Application) Now to answer for the first issue of, whether Ringer also comes under the liability situation, consider the elements of partnership. A partnership is formed when the intention of the parties in the partnership are expressly or are implied, according to the Partnership Act. Now assuming that the general partnership is what has been formed, it could be said that all four partners do have to face liabilities incurred because of the partnership. Applying Rule the Section 8 of the Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) (PA), Ringer is hence a partner and hence is liable.(Issue 2-Rule Application) There is actual express authority given to the John to clear purchases up to $50,000. While John has breached this agreement made with partners, still the other partners would be held liable. If John’s purchases were successful, then all other partners would also have had their share of profits, and Ringer would have got his retainer services.
So it is fair to state under the guidance of the Partnership Act that the liabilities incurred by purchases would have to be borne by all members. Now Ringer claims that he does not take part in the day to day management, and also does not take equal sharing of profits from the business. However, according to the Re Duddock case (1879) and the My Young Legal Associates Ltd v. Zahid  and Section 8 of the Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) (PA) by which it is stated that Ringer is a partner, even if the partner does not take part in the day to day management of the business, and even though they do not contribute to an equal claim on profits, they would still be liable.(Issue 3-Rule Application) George in carrying out a business, where former clients are being used could have taken up a competitive stance to QLD. And hence would have broken his fiduciary duty. This is understood from Scotts and Momentum Productions Pty Ltd v. Lewarne  case law and the Section 33 of Partnership Act 1891