Fact: The Patel family, consisting of parents and a son, was a partnership that owned and operated a motel. The parents made a contract to sell the motel, but thereafter the son refused to sell. He claimed that the contract of sale was not binding.

Decision: Judgement for the son. The motel was not as asset held by the partnership for sale. It was an asset that was essential for the running of the partnership/ business. Accordingly, neither one partner nor a majority had implied authority to sell the motel. To the contrary, the unanimous consent of all the partners was required for the sale of the motel because such a sale would make it impossible to continue the partnership business. [ Patel v Patel, 260 Cal Rptr 255 (Cal App 1989)]

I need help with a case briefing of a Case Summary above.