22:28 Take Quiz Exit Question 6 2 pts Michl, Will and Zach formed a partnership. They agreed that it would last three years. At the end of the three year period, Michl and Will wanted to continue the partnership, but Zach did not. Do Michl and Will have a right to continue the business without Zach? O No, because the business must terminate regardless of the current intent of the partners Yes, because a majority of partners wish to do SO. O No, because, as a non-wrongfully dissolving partner, Zach can demand that the business be wound up. Yes, because Zach's decision constitutes a wrongful dissolution. Zach has no right to participate in continuing the partnership. Question 7 3 pts ? Caroline and Will were partners in Camp Gold, a business that is now diccalved. TheyTake Quiz C Question 3 Kenny and Gina were partners in a partnership. Their agreement provided that they would remain partners for ve years, atter which time the partnership would revert to a partnership at will. After one year, however, Kenny decided to withdraw from the partnership. Under these circumstances: Kenny cannot withdraw since he agreed not to do so for ve years; he is still partners with Gina. Kenny has the power but not the right to withdraw. Gina may decide to continue the business without Kenny or to wind it up. Kenny has the power and the right to withdraw. He can participate in the decision whether the partnership business continues or winds up. Kenny has no power and no rights in the partnership. Gina may continue the business without him and, even it there was unpaid prots at the time or the dissolution, Kenny has no right to receive any proceeds from the business. 22:28 Take Quiz Exit that there was a partnership by estoppel, and that Patti has wrongfully dissolved it. O that there was a limited partnership, and that Patti has wrongfully dissolved. Question 11 2 pts Lorraine and Lynn formed a partnership. Lorraine assigned her interest in the partnership to her son, Alex. O Alex has no rights in the partnership; Lorraine's interest is not assignable. Alex is now a partner. O Alex has the right to receive any benefits owed Lorraine; however he is not a partner. O Alex is a partner by estoppel. Question 12 2 pts Western Wear Ltd. was a limited partnership which was organized by filing the article ? limited partnership with the Secretary State. If a creditor of the limited partnershipTake Quiz : Question 12 2 pts Western Wear Ltd. was a limited partnership which was organized by filing the articles of limited partnership with the Secretary of State. If a creditor of the limited partnership sues the limited partners for payment, the creditor will probably be unsuccessful, because limited partners are not normally liable for the limited partnership's debts. unsuccessful, because there is a limited partnership by estoppel. successful, because partners are liablc for partnership debts. successful, because partners in a limited partnership are general partners for purposes of satisfying creditor claims. Quiz saved at 10:28pm Submit Quiz Time Elapsed: Hide Time 6 Attempt due: Oct 31 atm Take Quiz : Question 7 3 ptS Caroline and Will were partners in Camp Golda business that is now dissolved. They had each paid in $10,000 to start the business. In addition, Caroline loaned the business $30,000. The partnership owes a total of $40,000 to various vendors. Camp Gold has $60,000. Under these circumstances, how does the money get distributed? The vendors, Caroline and Will share equally, receiving $20,000 each. The vendors get $40,000 and Caroline and Will each get $10,000. The vendors get $40,000, Caroline gets $20,000 and Will gets nothing. No answer text provided. : Question 8 2 pts Marshall formed a limited partnership fg purpose of WWWexport 22:28 Take Quiz Exit business. Question 4 2 pts Arash, Spencer and Marz are partners in a partnership at will. The partnership has a three-year lease with Taylor Properties, LLC. Although there is one year left on the lease, Arash dissociates from the partnership. Under these circumstances: O Arash is liable on the lease only up to the time that he dissociated from the partnership; he has no continuing liability. O Arish is not liable on the lease; his dissociation from the partnership caused a novation which relives him from any obligation. O Arash remains liable on the lease although he is no longer a partner. Arash remains liable on the lease because he ratified its renewal. D Question 5 ? al Festival22:28 Take Quiz Exit D Question 5 2 pts lan and Jonathan co-owned Falafel Festival, a restaurant, as partners. During that time, they had debts of approximately $5,000 to a vendor, Webb, Inc. Sioneh then joined lan and Jonathan as a partner and, at the same time, the partners agreed to no longer use Webb, Inc. as a supplier. Under these circumstances, who is responsible for paying Webb, Inc. for the debt incurred before Sioneh became a partner? O Falafel Festival, a partnership, only. O Falafel Festival, a partnership, and lan and Jonathan, individually and in their capacities as partners, only. O Falafel Festival, a partnership, and lan, Jonathan, and Sioneh individually and in their capacities as partners, only. O No answer text provided. Question 6 2 pts ? Michl, Will and Zach formed a partnership. They agreed ree vears At22:28 Take Quiz Exit can limit the liability of all of the partners. O none of the above. Question 9 1 pts Under the theory(ies), a departing partner may be liable for a third party's extension of credit to the partnership after dissolution, if the creditor believed in good faith that the departing partner was still a partner. (choose one answer) O novation O partnership by estoppel O silent partner O breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation. Question 10 2 pts Kim and Patti opened a small gift shop "Four Corners." They jointly signed a or ? lease for the shop rental. After operating for three the22:28 Take Quiz Exit O breach of warranty and negligent misrepresentation. Question 10 2 pts Kim and Patti opened a small gift shop called 'Four Corners." They jointly signed a one-year lease for the shop rental. After operating for three months, Patti decided to close the business. Kim's best argument is O that there was a partnership at will, and that Patti has wrongfully dissolved it. O that there was a partnership for a term of one year, as implied by the rental agreement, and Patti has wrongfully dissolved. O that there was a partnership by estoppel, and that Patti has wrongfully dissolved it. O that there was a limited partnership, and that Patti has wrongfully dissolved. Question 11 2 pts ? Lorraine and Lynn formed a partnership. Lorraine assigned ner interestTake Quiz No answer te>