Re C & M Ashberg

A is estopped from
denying the existence of
the firm.
D & H Bunny Pty Ltd.
V Atkins
Atkins and Naughton
approached the credit
manager of a company
and asked for extended
credit facilities stating
that there have agreed to
become partners with
each other.Goods were
supplied to Naughton on
credit debited to jointly
opened accounts.Atkins
was held liable base on
his representation
eventhough the firm does
not exist.
Tower Cabinet Co. Ltd
v ngra!
Christmas and Ingram
carried on a partnership
business selling
household furniture under
the name erry!s. "he
partnership was dissolved
by mutual agreement in
#$%&.Christmas continue
to run the business and
ordered several items of
furniture from '. (y
mistake he confirmed the
order on old notepaper
which had Ingram!s name
on it. )ebt was not paid
and ' then make Ingram
liable u*s. #+,#-. ' did not
deal with the firm before
and does not know
Ingram!s existence..eld/
It was impossible to
conclude that Ingram had
knowingly suffered
himself to be represented
as a partner since he
neither knew of nor
authorised the use of the
old note paper."he word
!knowingly suffers! 0not
being negligent or
careless in not seeing that
all the note paper had
been destroyed when he
left.
Martin v "rey
"he representation need not
have to be made directly to
the person who acts upon
it.It is sufficient if it has
come o his knowledge
through any sources.
1ynch v 2tiff
r 1ynch was employed as
a solicitor in a practice.
3venthough his name
appears as partner in the
notepaper of the firm4 but
he remain all the time as a
employee of the firm..e
was employed by the
employer!s father and had
always been r. 2tifs
solicitor..5hen the son took
over4 he ensured r. 2tiff
than 1ynch will continue to
take his affairs.r 2tiif
belief the representation to
be true and also since the
name of 1ynch was at the
notepaper as a partner. 2tiff
gave the firm money for
investment which was
misappropriated by the
son .2tiff now sue 1ynch
under section identical to
s.#+,#-.
.eld/ 2o long as r 2tiff
can prove he relied and
belif on the representation
is enough.
Hudge## $eates & Co. v
%atson
In #$&6 r. 5atson
instructed one of the
partners in a solicitor firm
to act for him in a case. (ut
the case was handled by
another 'artner. At the
same time a partner from
the firm expires his
practising certificate and so
dis7ualified as a partner.It
was argued that the
dis7ualification dissolve the
whole partnership and so
r 5atson has no
obligation to pay legal bill.
C8A dismiss this argument
"he two other partner who
was not dis7ualified could
sue for the money.