franchise very near to an existing franchise?
That the practice is illegal.
That the practice is illegal unless the first franchisee provides specific permission for the sale to the second
franchisee.
That the practice is legal and that no disclosures are required.
That the practice is legal but that certain disclosures must be made to the first franchisee when that agreement
is made.
Fact Pattern 19-2
Maxine and Vince verbally agree to form a dog grooming partnership called “XYZ Grooming.” They file nothing with the
state. Maxine puts up 80% of the capital needed for the partnership, and Vince supplies 20%. Maxine assumed that Vince
would do extra work to account for the small amount of capital contributed by him, but that did not occur. Maxine found
herself grooming more than 90% of the animals on her own. Maxine told Vince that he was only entitled to 10% of the
profits because he was only doing 10% of the work. Vince disagreed, and a heated argument occurred. Not surprisingly,
Maxine and Vince decided to end the partnership. While winding up affairs, Maxine discovered that Vince paid an
excessive amount for some dog shampoo. She thought he bought it from a certain supplier just so he could flirt with the
receptionist there. She told him that paying for the shampoo was entirely his responsibility because she had not agreed to
the purchase. Maxine and Vince also became aware of a lawsuit filed by the owner of a Welsh Pembroke Corgi
complaining that the dog developed a skin rash following bathing by Vince in the expensive shampoo he had purchased,
and that the owner lost money because the dog could not be entered into shows. Maxine told Vince that the litigation was
entirely his responsibility and that she disavowed any liability to the plaintiff.
61. Refer to Fact Pattern 19–2. Which of the following is true regarding Vince’s entitlement, if any, to share in profits of
the business?
Because he was not doing his share of the work, he was not entitled to any profits.
He was entitled to 10% of the profits.
He was entitled to 20% of the profits.
He was entitled to 50% of the profits.
United States – BUSPROG: – ANALYTIC
19-2 General Partnerships
62. Refer to Fact Pattern 19–2. Is Maxine, XYZ Grooming, or Vince responsible for payment of the shampoo purchased
by Vince?
The partnership is liable and Vince is liable in the event there are insufficient partnership assets, but Maxine is
not liable on the debt.
United States – BUSBROG: – Analytic
DISC: – AICPA: BB-Legal
Inside Story: Focus on Franchises
Blooms: Comprehension