n 2010, Anter, Chainel, and Hupter created ACH Associates, a general partnership. The partners orally agreed that they would work full time for the partnership and would distribute profits based on their capital contributions. Anter contributed $5,000: Chainel $10,000; and Humpter $15,000.

For the year ended December 31, 2011, ACH Associates had profits of $60,000 that were distributed to the partners. During 2012, ACH Associates was operating at a loss. In September 2012, the partnership dissolved.

In October 2012, Humpter contracted in writing with AUTO Automobile Co. to purchase a car for the partnership. Humpter had previously purchased cars from AUTO Automobile Co. for use by ACH Associates partners. ACH Associated did not honor the contract with AUTO Automobile Co. and AUTO Automobile Co. sued the partnership and the individual partners.

Based on the scenario above, determine which of the following statements are true and which statements are false.

For each statement, provide the reasons for each statement as to why the statements are true or false statements.

The ACH Associates oral partnership agreement was valid. The ACH Associates oral partnership agreement was invalid because the partnership lasted for more than one year.

Anter, Chainel, and Humpter jointly owning and conducting a business for profit establishes a partnership relationship. Anter, Chainel, and Humpter jointly owning income-producing property establishes a partnership relationship.

Anter's share of ACH Associates' 2011 profits was $20,000. Humpter's share of ACH Associates' 2011 profits was $30,000.

Anter's capital account would be reduced by 1/3 of any 2012 losses. Humpter's capital account would be reduced by 1/2 of any 2012 losses.

AUTO Automobile Co. would lose a suit brought against ACH Associates because Humpter, as a general partner, has no authority to bind the partnership. AUTO Automobile Co. would win a suit brought against ACH Associates because Humpter's authority continues during dissolution.

ACH Associates and Humpter would be the only parties liable to pay any judgment recovered by AUTO Automobile Co. Anter, Chainel, and Humpter would be jointly and severally liable to pay any judgment recovered by AUTO Automobile Co.