Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)

Citation: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Parent Document: Moorcroft v. Severance (2018)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2018-03-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10026703/moorcroft-v-severance/ ↗

Full Text

729 chars

As to the claim for declaration that Pride Auto and Pride Auto East were operated as
general partnerships, the court rejects the claim under the factual findings described above. In
essence the court declines to find a partnership as there never was a meeting of the minds to
operate the businesses as co-owners. An essential element of a business partnership is an
agreement among the parties to share in the profits and losses of the venture. Mislosky v.
Wilhelm, 130 Vt. 63, 68 (1971), citing Sheldon v. Little, 111 Vt. 301, 304, 305, 15 A.2d 574;
Farmers' Exchange v. Brown,106 Vt. 65, 67, 169 A. 906. An agreement to share losses in
particular was lacking in Jim and John’s relationship as to Pride Auto and Pride Auto East.

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text