written response to problem 6

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion

6. Don King and Scott Willson worked together on improving and selling an electronic payment system. To develop the system, they pooled their money and labor, with King providing financing and Willson contributing his time and expertise, amounting to about 2,000 hours of work over the period of a year. Willson was not paid by King for the work. Willson and King consulted with each other over pricing of equipment and services sold by the business. They made joint decisions to cut cer- tain costs. Willson set up the invoice system used to bill customers. Willson made technical decisions on how best to assemble, repair, and maintain various aspects of the electronic payment system. King and Willson jointly addressed customer issues as they arose and jointly eval- uated the systems' priorities as they went along. Willson and King also had an agreement to share profits. Are they partners? Why or why not