In CASE 19.2Holmes v. Lerner(1999),Lerner (a wealthy entrepreneur)talked to Holmes about setting up a cosmetics business called Urban Decay. Holmes received assurances from Lerner about finances and setting up the business. Later Lerner negotiated a separate deal for Urban Decay without including Holmes, and drafted articles of incorporation which gave Holmes only a one percent interest in Urban Decay. Holmes sued, insisting that even though they had no written agreement, she should have been a full and equal partner. How did the court rule and why??
A) The court held for Lerner as a full and equal partner, because the oral and written expressions and discussion of profits was a prerequisite to form a partnership.
B) The court held for Lerner, there was insufficient evidence of intentions to form a partnership.
C) The court held for Holmes as a full and equal partner, because the oral and written expressions and discussion of profits was a prerequisite to form a partnership.
D) The court held for Holmes, because under state law, she automatically became a limited partner.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Step 1 of 3 A No Mr L was not right in denying the existence of ... View the full answer