1st student discussion)
General Partnership
Multiparty owners, has level right to the function of the business. Personal liability parallel to a sole proprietorship. LLC limits individual liability, acting as a corporation, putting the liability on the business, and not the owners. General partnership functions below the names of owners; an LLC may own contracts alone form the owners of a business (Rayne, 2016). In a general partnership, assume the business’s debts, obligations, risks personally, essentially meaning the business owns assets, so does individuals in partnership (Rayne, 2016). Legal suits can only be trailed in contradiction of the business. General partnership a lawsuit can be against the business and the owners.
Advising would be for Peter and Andrew to general partnership, without Paul. In 2 Corinthians 6:14, there is a waring of the consequences for associating with nonbelievers, “for what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (NIV). Having desrnment of the obligation to share the gospel and seeking fellowship with other believers.
If the two were to input the general partnership with an agreement on how the profits and losses. Shared contract and to have equal power in the business. General partnership allows personal risk, a healthier agreement for Peter and Andrew. Without the co-ownership of Paul both parties are able to have self-determination in conducting the business.
2nd student discussion)
The debate between the advantages and disadvantages of limited liability and partnerships is a prominent topic in modern corporate America. Sometimes people are able to take on the risk involved in partnerships financially and they get along well with those they are partnered with so they decide to go the partnership route and are able to share in all the profits they are able to make with the company. In many cases, however, despite the initial positivity and cohesion within the founding members, over a longer period of time conflict inevitably arises among the partners and the entire company falls apart, or at the very best, becomes much harder to manage. In our scenario with Peter, Andrew, and Paul, this looks to be a strong case to believe a similar situation will occur. It is for this reason I think they should formulate there business idea into a Limited Liability Company. With this format, they will not be personally liable for any of the debts or liabilities of the company. It will also mean that they are able to guard themselves form the potential of any lawsuits from each of the other founders of the company. In the case of Paul he may be willing to put up with the idea of using the barn as a church retreat at first simply because he is their friend but over time that sentiment may not hold so well. It is for this reason that I think Paul should not be named a co-owner but still receive a comparable portion of the companies profits or losses. Since this was Peter's and Andrew's idea from the start and something they have been looking to do for a long time, they should be the ones who decide the ultimate fate of the company and not have to worry about potential hostilities between them and Paul simply because of disputing religious views. It is good for the brothers to have Paul since he will be very valuable in the day to day processes of the company but ultimately, having limited liability will give the brothers the most security to do with the company what they had always intended.
.... Note: AGAIN ONLY REPLYS TO BOTH AND DB REPLY INSTUCTIONS WITHIN ATTACH. Thank you!
No related question exists
