Question

Summers and Dooley formed a partnership for the purpose of operating a trash collection business. The business was operated by the two men, and when either was unable to work, he nonworking partner provided a replacement at his own expense. Summers approached Dooley and requested that they hire a third worker. Dooley refused. Notwithstanding Dooleys refusal Summers, on his own initiative, hired a worker. Summers paid the employee out of his own pocket. Dooley, upon discovery that a third person had been hired, objected. He stated that the additional labor was not necessary and refused to allow partnership funds to be used to pay the new employee. After paying out more than $11,000 in wages without any reimbursement from either partnership funds of his partner, Summers brought suit in the Idaho state courts. The trial court held that Summers was not enttiled to reimburrsement for the wages he had paid the employee. On appeal, did the supreme court of idaho uphold the trial courts decison? explain. Explain whether the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the trial court's decision and why or why not

Answer 1

Supreme court shall upheld trial cohrts decision because of following reasons

1. Majority of partners "Voted No " against hiring third person
2. It is manifestly unjust to permit reimbursement to one if partners who incurred expenses on his own behalf
3. Secondly the hiring of third person was beneficial to the plaintiff partner and did not benefit other partners who were in majority.