- 18 -
Pennsylvania cases cited by petitioners, we have no need to deal
with petitioners' assertion that they should prevail because an
agreement is unenforceable under Pennsylvania law against a party
who has not signed it. Similarly, we have no need, then, to
address petitioners' argument that the alleged failure to sign
the writing represents a mutual mistake under Commissioner v.
Danielson, 378 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967), remanding 44 T.C. 549
(1965), the Court of Appeals to which an appeal herein would lie.
We note merely that Danielson stands for the proposition that a
party seeking to vary the terms of a contract must show that the
contract should not be recognized due to some conduct that
invalidated the meeting of the minds necessary for assent to the
terms of the agreement, in the nature of fraud, duress, undue
influence, or mutual mistake. Id.; Highland Farms, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 106 T.C. 237, 255-256 (1996). Petitioners have
offered no evidence that Mr. Doyle's relationship to the
partnership was somehow tainted and thus invalid. Danielson
simply has no application herein.
Having held that petitioners have failed to carry their
burden of proving that the partnership agreement was not
executed, we are left with the question whether the authority
granted to the general partner in the agreement, see supra p. 3,
is sufficiently broad to include the signing of the consent by
Mr. Farley. We think that, by its terms, it was sufficiently
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011