»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp contention is sometimes advanced that an association between persons for a business purpose falls short of partnership in some way. Such an association is often called a ‘joint ventureâ€�. On close examination many of these associations prove to be partnerships, despite the name applied to them. A joint venture which is not a partnership is most likely to be found where parties already carrying on businesses of their own agree to co-operate in a single project but they do not agree to share net profits or losses. Where they do agree to share net profits or losses, it is likely that a partnership will result even where the parties are already engaged in their own businesses - see Morden Rigg & Co and R B Eskrigge & Co v Monks [1923] 8TC450 in which two companies purchased and sold cotton and shared profits. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp agreement between them disclaimed that their relationship was one of partnership but the court decided that there was one. In John Gardner & Bowring, Hardy & Co Ltd v CIR [1930] 15TC602 coal merchants entered into temporary and informal arrangements during a strike for the purchase and sale of coal. Profits were divided equally and the court decided that the arrangements were partnerships. In George Hall & Son v Platt [1954] 35TC440 a farmer and an agricultural merchant entered into an agreement to grow carrots. Expenses were met out of gross proceeds and the balance of profit was divided equally. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp arrangements were held to be a partnership.

But for a partnership to exist there must be a business. And that business must be a business that is separate and distinct from any other business that the joint venturers may conduct on their own account. Such a situation occurs in a genuine share farming agreement where a landowner and farmer combine, sharing their resources, with each party meeting their own expenses and taking a share of the produce. In these circumstances the relationship will fall short of partnership.