David Byker was an accountant working for Tom Mannes. The two talked about going into business together because they had complementary business skills—Mannes (defendant) could locate certain properties because of his real estate background and Byker (plaintiff) could raise money for the property purchases. Subsequently, the two agreed to engage in an ongoing business enterprise, to furnish capital, labor, and/or skill to the enterprise, to raise investment funds, and to share equally in the profits, losses, and expenses of the enterprise. To facilitate the investment of limited partners, Byker and Mannes created separate entities wherein they were general partners or shareholders for the purposes of operating each separate entity. After the two men encountered some financial difficulties with a venture, Byker approached Mannes with regard to equalizing payments as a result of the losses incurred with the failed business opportunity. Mannes claims that this was the first time he ever received notice about any outstanding payments. After unsuccessfully seeking reimbursement from Mannes, Byker filed suit for the recovery of the money on the basis that the two men had entered into a partnership. Specifically, Byker asserted that the obligations between him and the defendant were not limited to their formal business relationships established by the individual partnerships and corporate entities but that there was a “general” partnership underlying all their business affairs. In response, Mannes asserted that he merely invested in separate business ventures with the plaintiff and that there were no other understandings between them. Did the two businessmen form a partnership, or were their business deals all separate ventures? Was there intent to make a consensual business relationship even though Mannes argues there was not?