Mr. and Mrs. Concklin next argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their partnership liability claim against Lewis. They contend that Lewis and Will were co-owners of the Fenwick property and intended to resell the house after remodeling.3 As a co-owner, they contend, Lewis was a partner and, as such, is jointly and severally liable for the debts of the partnership in addition to any claims arising from a partner's use of the property.

Tennessee Code Annotated 61-1-101(6) (2002) defines a partnership as "an association of two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business or other undertaking for profit...." Further, "[t]he general rule is that each partner is a general agent of the firm but only for the purpose of carrying on the business of the partnership. Any sale by a partner to be valid must be in furtherance of the partnership business...." Bole v. Lyle, 39 Tenn.App. 679, 287 S.W.2d 931, 933 (1955). Assuming arguendo that Will and Lewis bought the Fenwick property to resell, Will's distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol to third party visitors would not be for the purpose or in furtherance of the partnership. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of the 12.02(6) motion to dismiss the claim of partnership liability against Lewis.

Based on this case respond to the following questions.

1. Was there a partnership?

2. What was the partnership formed to do?

3. As a practical matter, why would the Conklins sue Holland instead of Lewis for partnership liability?