by the partner in equal share and that the profit should be share equally.

In addition to
that, Ahmad and Baba will receive salary of RM3000 per month for managing the firm’s
business.
All of the partners are entitle for profit shared equally among them from their business.
I support this with case Binney Vs Mutrie. It was held that the existence of partnership
agreement which interalia list down the share profit and loses at a certain ration is binding.
Therefore, section 24(1) of Partnership Act 1890(in pari materia with section 26 of Partnership
Act 1961) does not apply.In a partnership business,no partner shall be entitled to remuneration
for acting in the partnership business. Remuneration is refers to wages, salary, payment made
by employer in return of works or services given. Partner’s are not entitled for salary from the
partnership.This is because each partner will received his reward by a share of profits.
Nevertheless, `salaried partner’ can exist provided that it was stated clearly in the agreement.
So, Ahmad and Baba is entitle for the salary because it was stated in their agreement which is
to receive RM3000 per month for the management of business.
Since the business has been doing very well, they expand their business by opening a car
workshop. Ahmad wishes to bring his son Ali, who has just finished his study in motor vehicles
maintenance and repair as and apprentice at the workshop. However Baba did not agree with
his idea. In order for a new partner to be brought into the partnership, consent of all existing
partners are needed. based on this problem, Baba who is one of the partner did not agree with
the idea of Ahmad to bring his son Ali. Hence, Ahmad cannot bring his son into the partnership.
I support this with case Byrne v. Reid. In Braye v Reid, the clause gave each partner the right to
nominate and introduce any other person into to the firm.B nominate his son who was
employed in the firm, but the other partners refused to admit him.They then consented to his
admission but failed to execute any other document necessary for this.The English Court of
Appeal decided that since the clause was so wide and contained no restrictions the other
partners had consented in advance to the son’s nomination.There was no reason why they
should not so agree or give their consent in advance.
Meanwhile, Chong does not satisfy with the way how Ahmad manages the partnership
business and wishes to expel him from partnership. However, the majority of partners cannot expel
any partner unless it was stated by an express agreement between the partner as well as if there is no
agreement made between the partners, the expulsion cannot be made unless the matter are bring to
the court. In this problem, it was not stated about the expulsion of the partners. I support this with case
Re a Solicitor’s arbitration.E, N, and S are partners in a legal firm. In the partnersip agreement, there was
a clause stated that if any partner shall commit or be guilty on any act of profesional misconduct, then
the other partner may by notice in writing, expel him from the partnership. E served on the other two
partners a notice to expel both of them from the partnership on the ground of their alleged misconduct.
It was held that E had no power to expel both of them as he is not a majority. Alternatively, E will have
to join with anyone of N and S to expel one partner in the partnership.

Chong also argue that Ahmad and Baba are not entitle to receive the salary of RM3000 per month as
they already receive their reward by sharing of the profit. Partner’s are not entitled for the salary from
the partnership. This is because each partner will receive this reward by a share of profit. Nevertheless,
`salaried partner’ can exist provided that it was stated clearly in the agreement. In this problem, it was
stated in the agreement that Ahmad an Baba is entitle fot the salary RM3000 per