DCC 81, 152/2005
This case involved a share of an individual who claimed to be a partner in a business but instead of a written partnership contract there was an employment contract. One issue was the impact on the case of a change that the partnership was based on work not capital.
Background
A Defendant owned an individual commercial establishment and agreed the Plaintiff could join as a partner with a 40% share but did not release a written contract, and instead released an employment contract stating the Plaintiff was Director General in contradiction with the housing and transportation in addition to being a partner in the company.
The Plaintiff was signing contracts with clients in his capacity as the partner manager and on internal letters without objection from the Defendant and was disbursing cash under the calculation of his profit share. However, when the company succeeded and doubled the volume of work because of good management, the Defendant refused to give him his rights as a partner and considered him a mere employee and not a partner, which prompted the Plaintiff to file this lawsuit.
Proceedings
Court of first instance | Decision dated 27/01/2003