Bob, Carol, and Ted have decided to go into business as a limited partnership importing
and selling exotic spices. Bob and Carol will manage the business, and Ted will have no
role in the day-to-day operations. Bob and Carol have each invested $500,000, and Ted
has contributed the building and land that the business will be operated from. Alice, a
customer, contracts a rare disease from a contaminated spice sold by the company and
sues. Alice is awarded a judgment for $5 million. After she exhausts the assets of the
partnership, having the property and building sold and seizing all other property, $3
million remains unpaid.
A. Bob, Carol, and Ted each owe $1 million, and Alice must sue each for his or her
part.
B. Bob, Carol, and Ted each owe $3 million jointly and severally, so Alice may sue
one, two, or all three for the $3 million balance.
C. Bob and Carol each owe $1.5 million, and Alice must sue each for his or her part;
Ted has no additional liability.
D. Bob and Carol each owe $3 million jointly and severally, so Alice may sue one or
both of them; Ted has no additional liability.
In Forestal Guarani S. A. v. Daros International Inc., Forestal was a maker of wood
finger joints based in Argentina. Daros, a U.S. business, orally agreed to sell Forestal’s
finger joints to third parties in the United States. A dispute arose over the amount Daros
owed for the product that Forestal delivered. Argentina, like the United States, had
ratified the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) to
govern contracts between merchants for the sale of goods. Unlike the United States,
Argentina had made an Article 96 declaration, which meant the country required that
contracts governed by the CISG be in writing. When Forestal sued Daros for the money
it claimed Daros owed, Daros argued that the claim was precluded because the contract
was not in writing. The appeals court held that: