Partnerships operate differently from corporations; the distinction goes
beyond mere labels. Most notably, for present purposes, each owner of a
partnership (i.e., each partner) shares an equal right to control the
business organization. Someone who merely contributes money would probably
not qualify as a partner. He/she would more likely qualify as a creditor.
The sole proprietor, in contrast, has such a right and, correspondingly, a
responsibility for the firm's liabilities.
Daniel Ust wrote:
> [S]houldn't this be decided on what is actually the case rather
> than the labels attached? I mean if you agree that managers should be held
> responsible -- or more responsible for day to day mistakes -- than
> investors, shouldn't this same logic be applied elsewhere? A partner who
> merely puts his money into, say, a oil well but does not otherwise manage
it
> should not, by this logic, be held responsible for that well blowing up and
> destroying several nearby buildings. Ditto for sole proprietorships where
> the sole proprietor hires a manager to run things. If you don't agree,
what
> gives corporations special status here?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:06 MDT