4. In June 2001. Greenfeld, Stitely, and Karstetter negotiated to merge their practices into a partner- ship that would provide accounting, tax, and infor- mation technology services. The partnership was profitable every year from its inception. However, Stitely felt that Greenfeld's information technol- ogy services were not generating as much revenue as his one-third share in the partnership should. So Stitely indicated to the partners that he wanted to withdraw from the partnership. Soon after, Stitely and Karstetter agreed to instead continue as part- ners together after Greenfeld was out of the picture. Greenfeld did not violate his partnership agreement. but the two partners forced Greenfeld out of the part- nership without compensating him for his interest. They accomplished this by unlawful means, such aspurporting to withdraw from the partnership while in reality seizing control of its assets. Furthermore. they transferred the assets of the partnership to their new company. preventing Greenfeld from having computer access to the business files, software, and client records, Was the partnership terminated prop- erly? If the dissolution was wrongful, what poten- tial consequences could Stitely and Karstetter face? Wayne 1. Greenfeld v. Frank L. Stirely, er al., 2007 Va. Cir, LEXIS 7 (2007).]5. Jones and Hardy entered into an oral partnership agreement. They planned to develop and lease certain areas of land. Together, they formed the Bloomington Knolls Association. Jones and Hardy began to experience financial problems, and they brought in a third partner, Jackson, to arrange addi- tional financing for the project. Jones subsequently dissolved the partnership and requested that he be given a portion of the land as his share of the part- nership assets. Jackson and Hardy did not honor his request, and Jones never received any assets of the partnership. Jones moved for an accounting and winding up of partnership affairs and brought thecase to court. The district court entered judgment against Hardy and Jackson, jointly and severally, for an amount representative of Jones's interest in the partnership. Jackson and Hardy appealed the district court's decision. How do you think the court decided? [Mackay v. Hardy, 896 P.2d 626 (1995).]