August 2017
A partnership shall be deemed a partnership, be it continuous or temporary, even if it is an occasional partnership for the purpose of a single act(Taiwan)
2016.11.30
Angela Wu
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2144 Civil Decision of November 30, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that capital contribution to a partnership may come in the form of money, other property rights, or other benefits such as services or credit, and that a partnership shall be deemed a partnership, be it continuous or temporary, even if it is an occasional partnership for the purpose of a single act.
According to the Decision, the Appellant asserted the following facts. Both parties imported two cranes from Korea for resale with the Appellant taking out a bank loan of NT$10 million to contribute capital and the Appellee making the capital contribution by providing his resale services. Both parties agreed that the profits would be shared equally after the principal and interest of NT$10 million were deducted. Later, when the Appellant requested that the Appellee calculate the profits after around NT$12 million was received by the Appellee for the sale of the two cranes, the Appellee only paid some NT$1.98 million to the Appellant and refused to take any further payment measure. In response, the Appellee contended that the two parties did not have any partnership relationship.
According to the Decision, capital contribution to a partnership may be made in the form of cash or other property rights or other benefits such as services or credit, and a partnership shall be deemed a partnership, be it continuous or temporary, even if it is an occasional partnership for the purpose of a single act.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that according to the Appellee's statements and witness testimonies in another criminal matter, it was necessary to investigate and consider if the parties had agreed that the Appellant would contribute the capital while the Appellee contributed his services in their partnership for the operation of the crane sales business. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.
Angela Wu
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2144 Civil Decision of November 30, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that capital contribution to a partnership may come in the form of money, other property rights, or other benefits such as services or credit, and that a partnership shall be deemed a partnership, be it continuous or temporary, even if it is an occasional partnership for the purpose of a single act.
According to the Decision, the Appellant asserted the following facts. Both parties imported two cranes from Korea for resale with the Appellant taking out a bank loan of NT$10 million to contribute capital and the Appellee making the capital contribution by providing his resale services. Both parties agreed that the profits would be shared equally after the principal and interest of NT$10 million were deducted. Later, when the Appellant requested that the Appellee calculate the profits after around NT$12 million was received by the Appellee for the sale of the two cranes, the Appellee only paid some NT$1.98 million to the Appellant and refused to take any further payment measure. In response, the Appellee contended that the two parties did not have any partnership relationship.
According to the Decision, capital contribution to a partnership may be made in the form of cash or other property rights or other benefits such as services or credit, and a partnership shall be deemed a partnership, be it continuous or temporary, even if it is an occasional partnership for the purpose of a single act.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that according to the Appellee's statements and witness testimonies in another criminal matter, it was necessary to investigate and consider if the parties had agreed that the Appellant would contribute the capital while the Appellee contributed his services in their partnership for the operation of the crane sales business. Therefore, the original decision was reversed and remanded.
