In message <email@example.com>, krw <***@whitnet.uk> writes:
>On 01/07/2018 12:02, Btms wrote; my response is lower down:
>> I seem to have missed some of this. Does Kate have a case. Surely they
>> are noy all equal shareholders. But I like the portrayal of her being
>> rather like her Father. She has an excellent role model.
I do feel Kate has been a _bit_ ignored. Normally I dislike her total
fecklessness and laziness when it comes to following things through. But
- if we _do_ accept that her business has grown to something viable
(which I certainly hadn't really been aware of, but odd indications in
the last year or so have suggested it) - then imperilling it _is_ a
consideration, and also the way she's been excluded from meetings (or
close to that) would have been unacceptable if it had been anyone other
than "oh just Kate".
>Having now heard Friday evening I reckon that there is probably a
>clause in the agreement which requires approval by all partners if
>money is spent on some aspect which "shrinks" the business. So Kate
>refusing to approve spend on the clean up is a possibility.
As another has said, this has not been thought out at all well (if at
all). If Brian still does own all the land (presumably including the
house - and cottages unless explicit transfers were made), then - as we
discussed a little while ago - this "partnership" actually owns what?
Some farm machinery perhaps, and the contract to _service_ the farm,
which presumably Brine could terminate at next renewal, though it could
be argued by now that it is "established practice" or some such phrase
[_Does_ Brian still own the land? His name may be "on the deeds"
(presumably meaning what's at the Land Registry), but _did_ the land
become part of the assets when the partnership was formed? If it did,
then the fact that the registered owner wasn't changed _might_ be
somewhat academic: if the partnership papers mention it, then ... and if
they don't, then ... IANAL again.]
>That piece of land does not have to be sold - they can borrow against
>the farm to pay the costs instead of selling that piece of land!
(Or against the house. Assuming they can find anyone willing to lend
[against either: lenders decide not just based on the value of the
offered assets, but on their assessment of the potential borrower's
ability to repay, mixed with their assessment of the possible returns on
a forced hostile sale after eviction costs].)
Perhaps TA needs a legal adviser to go with the agricultural adviser
(or, the ag. ad.'s brief includes such matters - which it probably
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I don't like activity holidays. I like /inactivity/ holidays.
- Miriam Margolyes, RT 2017/4/15-21