Goudberg Vs. Herniman Associates Pty Ltd

575 Words2 Pages
Relevant facts of the case In the case of Goudberg v Herniman Associates Pty Ltd [2007] VSCA 12 (22 January 2007), Goudberg is the appellant and Herniman Associates Pty Ltd is the respondent. Williams and Goudberg had intentions of franchising an American food chain company Applebee. After they did some preliminary work with trips to America and some survey and field study, Williams started contracting with Herniman over architectural services. At September 2000, Williams had a contract with Herniman and it resulted in unpaid fees over $186,000. However, on 30th of June 2001 Applebee withdrew from the project and no business had actually been held. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made a decision that Williams and Goudberg were in partnership, therefore jointly liable to pay Herniman around the amount of $55,000.…show more content…
If the partnership was found to exist - the application of the three elements of s5 of the Partnership Act 1958 (Vic), two parties carrying on a business in common with a view to profit, there would be joint liability between the two parties of Williams and Goudberg. The main discussion point in this case was whether the “carrying on a business” element was in existence to establish a partnership. Relevant law relied on by the judge(s) in making their decision According to the Partnership Act 1958 (Vic) s5, the judge Maxwell P analysed whether Goudberg and Williams was in a partnership at the period when Williams had a contract with Herniman. S5 includes three elements that need to be satisfied in order for partnership to exist: carrying on business, in common and with a view of profit. The main emphasis on this case was determining the activities conducted by Goudberg and Williams was carrying on a business or the preparation for setting up a
Open Document