- 11 -
the usual way the business of the partnership of which
he is a member binds the partnership, unless the
partner so acting has in fact no authority to act for
the partnership in the particular matter, and the
person with whom he is dealing has knowledge of the
fact that he has no such authority.
A partner who deals with third persons without notice of any
lack of authority, binds the other partners “if the transaction
be such as the public may reasonably conclude is directly and
necessarily embraced within the partnership business as being
incident or appropriate to such business according to the course
and usage of conducting it." Cummings v. Nordmark, 438 P.2d 605,
606 (Wash. 1968) (quoting Merrill v. O’Bryan, 93 P. 917, 918
(Wash. 1908)). Whether a partner is within the scope of his
authority is a question for the trier of fact. Dowling v.
Exchange Bank, 145 U.S. 512 (1892); Cummings v. Nordmark, supra
at 606.
Respondent also relies on Amesbury Apartments, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra, a case in which we held valid a consent to
extend the assessment period that was signed for the partnership
by an accountant. The accountant signed the consent based on a
power of attorney authorizing him to represent that partnership
before the Internal Revenue Service, including the power to
extend the period for assessment with respect to the partnership.
The power of attorney had been signed by one of two general
partners, who was not the TMP.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011