Harriet Hankin, Samuel Hankin, Moe Henry Hankin, Perch P. Hankin, and Pauline Hankin, and their spouses, for many years operated a family partnership composed of vast real estate holdings. Some of the properties included restaurants, industrial buildings, shopping centers, golf courses, a motel chain, and hundreds of acres of developable ground, estimated to be worth $ 72 million. Because of family disagreement and discontent, the Hankin family agreed to dissolve the partnership. When they could not agree on how to liquidate the partnership assets, Harriet and Samuel ( collectively called Harriet) initiated an equity action. Based on assurances from Moe and Perch that they would sell the partnership assets as quickly as possible and at the high-est possible price, the court appointed them as liquidators of the partnership during the winding- up period. Based on similar assurances, the court again appointed them liquidators for the partnership. But two years later, only enough property had been sold to retire the debt of the partnership. Evidence showed that Moe and Perch had not aggressively marketed the remaining properties and that Moe wished to purchase some of the prop-erties for himself at a substantial discount from their estimated value. Six years and three appeals to the superior court later, Harriet brought an action seeking the appointment of a receiver to liquidate the remaining partnership assets. Did Moe Henry Hankin act ethically in this case?