Asked by Andrew Elmowitz on May 10, 2024
Verified
In the case in the text,Dixon v.Crawford,McGilliard,Peterson & Yelish,why did the court hold that the clients Dixon took with him did not impact the value of the firm's goodwill?
A) Neither Dixon nor Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.
B) The dissociated partner is compensated for value taken by his departure.
C) The evidence indicated Dixon did not intentionally steal clients.
D) Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.
Firm's Goodwill
An intangible asset representing the value of a business's brand, customer base, and reputation beyond its tangible assets.
- Assess the consequences of legal determinations regarding partnership dissolution on the conduct of partnership businesses.
- Clarify how certain cases showcase the application of regulations governing partnerships.
Verified Answer
ML
Manish LimbuMay 13, 2024
Final Answer :
A
Explanation :
The court held that a firm's current clients may be evidence of the firm's "expectation of continued public patronage," but clients are not a commodity.Neither Dixon nor Crawford had a proprietary interest in the clients.
Learning Objectives
- Assess the consequences of legal determinations regarding partnership dissolution on the conduct of partnership businesses.
- Clarify how certain cases showcase the application of regulations governing partnerships.