Get help now

Chaiken Case Brief

  • Pages 2
  • Words 341
  • Views 600
  • dovnload

    Download

    Cite

  • Pages 2
  • Words 341
  • Views 600
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    Chaiken Case Brief Facts: Chaiken made separate but equal agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barber shop. Under the “partnership” agreement: ~ Chaiken would provide the barber chairs, supplies and licenses. Strazella and Spitzer provide tools of the trade. ~ Gross returns were to be divided on a percentage basis between all three men. ~ Chaiken will decide all matters of the partnership policy. ~Stated hours of work and holidays. ~Chaiken holds and distributes all receipts. The Delaware Employment Security Commission determined that Strazella and Spitzer were not partners but employees.

    They then brought action to assess unemployment compensation contributions against Chaiken. Chaiken said they were partners not employees as stated in a written agreement. As their partner not their employer, he is not liable for unemployment compensation contributions. Judgment was for the commission. Issue: Was there really a partnership? In order for a partnership to exist there needs to be co-ownership. Two requirements for co-ownership are the sharing of profits and the right to manage and control the business.

    Since a person who receives a share of the profits from a business is presumed to be a partner. But the RUPA says that the existence of a partnership shall not be presumed if profits are received in payment of wages or other compensation to an employee, and that the sharing of gross returns does not establish a partnership. The second requirement for co-ownership requires the right to manage and control the business. In the agreement, it is stated that Chaiken decides all matters of the partnership policy and he holds and distributes all receipts, so the greement does not meet that requirement. Also, the Strazella and Spitzer only had to bring to the business the equipment required of any barber shop operators while Chaiken did all the transactions with suppliers, purchase of licenses and leased the property for the business in his own name. Tests of partnership existence 1. an association of two or more persons with capacity: pass 2. conducting a business for profit: pass 3. co-ownership (profit sharing, loss sharing, control): fail

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Chaiken Case Brief. (2016, Dec 10). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/chaiken-case-brief/

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy