North Port Golf Associates (NPGA) is a limited partnership involved in real estate and golf course development. NPGA contacted the Palmer Course Design Company (PCDC) and the Arnold Palmer Golf Management Company (APGMC) to design and manage two championship golf courses. As part of the agreement, NPGA was prohibited from using Arnold Palmer's name to promote any other business. A disclaimer was placed on the official investment summary brochure of NPGA stating, "As described herein, golf course design and management services will be provided to the partnership by PCDC and APGMC, respectively. Neither of these companies, nor Arnold Palmer, is affiliated with the partnership or general partners." PCDC completed the design of the golf course, but APGMC terminated its contract after NPGA refused to pay. After the failure of the project, NPGA alleged that Arnold Palmer, APGMC, and PCDC were partners by estoppel and were partially responsible for the interests of the limited partnership. Do you think the court agreed with NPGA? Why or why not?