In this case, Stephen Wainger is the plaintiff, while the firm Glasser & Glasser were the defendants. The facts of the case were that Wainger was a partner of the firm. After withdrawing from the firm, he was entitled to undivided profits from any uncollected fees before he withdrew.

Case study
1-J.C., Inc., had a franchise agreement with McDonald’s Corporation to operate McDonald’s restaurants in Lancaster, Ohio. The agreement required J.C. to make monthly payments to McDonald’s of certain percentages of the gross sales. If any payment was more than 30 days late, McDonald’s had the right to terminate the franchise. The agreement also stated that even if McDonald’s accepted a late payment, that would not “constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach.” McDonald’s sometimes accepted J.C.’s late payments, but when J.C. defaulted on the payments in July 2010, McDonald’s gave notice of 30 days to comply or surrender possession of the restaurants. J.C. missed the deadline. McDonald’s demanded that J.C. vacate the restaurants, but J.C. refused. McDonald’s files a lawsuit alleging that J.C. had violated the franchise agreement. J.C claimed that McDonald’s had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Which party should prevail and why?

2-What are the differences between general partners and limited partners in a limited partnership?

Part two :
Paraphrasing

1-In this case, Stephen Wainger is the plaintiff, while the firm Glasser & Glasser were the defendants. The facts of the case were that Wainger was a partner of the firm. After withdrawing from the firm, he was entitled to undivided profits from any uncollected fees before he withdrew. When the firm received these profits, they did not compensate Wainger. The legal issue for determination in court was whether the fees claimed by Winger were contingent legal fees fully earned within the meaning of the partnership agreement. Wainger should win the case. This is because the firm violated the agreement they had with Wainger before he withdrew from the firm. According to DR 2-105(C) of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, claims in which the contingent fees were based were liquidated by the entry of the consent judgments were to be paid in full”(Wainger v Glasser & Glasser, 1995).
Question 7
The petitioner, in this case, was Astroline Communications Company, while the defendant was Astroline Company. Astroline Communicatiosn Company was a partner of Astroline Company. Astroline Communications has a limited liability, while Astroline Company is a limited partnership. Astroline Communications Company fell I debt and filed for bankruptcy. The issue for determination before the court was whether Astroline Company was liable for the debts of Astroline Communications Company. The answer to the issue is no. Astroline Company and Astroline Communications Company had a limited liability partnership. This means that if one of them falls into debt, the other company’s assets cannot be used to pay the debt since its liability is limited. Section 723(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that in a partnership, one has to prove that such a general partner is personally liable for a property deficiency (In re Astroline Communications, 1998). Thus, Astroline Company would win the case.

2-the Parham woodman is the plaintiff, while the plaintiff is the Citizens Bank of Massachusetts. The two parties entered into a construction loan contract. The loan was meant to construct a building; the Parham had three partners( Brand,2022). The building was built, and the partnership paid the loan but later defaulted. The bank later sold the building because the partnership defaulted to pay the loan claiming that they joined the organization when the loan contract was made.
The court finds out that all the partners in the organization are responsible for the finances owed by the Citizens Bank of Massachusetts but the responsibility of Richard L. Henley, Joseph Tas, Kenneth E.Brown and Nada Tas may only be fulfilled out of collaboration resources. Bank should win the case because any person admitted as a partner into a previous partnership is responsible for all that arises before admission.
Chapter 36 case 10
Philip Heller is the plaintiff while and the defendant is the Pillsbury Madison Sutro and the defendant individuals. Heller joined Pillsbury Madison as a partner in the firm; however, his work could have been better. Heller signed a partnership agreement that allowed the executive to throw out partners in the firm (Nicholson,2018). Heller was later expelled from the firm and filed a case due to his expulsion. The court found out that the contract signed in 1992, a partnership agreement, stated the expulsion of partners.
Heller was expelled because his work was of poor quality, and he had a poor relationship with the firm. The Pillsbury Madison Sutro should win the case because Heller reviewed the contract before signing it. Heller agreed with the terms and conditions of the firm.