Gast brought suit for back wages against a partnership headed by general partner Petsinger. To improve his chances of recovering a court award, Gast maintained that the limited partners in the business were really general partners and were fully liable along with Petsinger. Gast based his claim on the partnership that gave the limited partners the rights and powers to receive distributions of funds, prevent the transfer of assets of the firm, examine the books and records, attend meetings, hear reports of the general partner, and transfer, sell or assign their interests to third parties. Should the limited partners in agreement be considered general partners?