As the partners agreed to run a high-quality nursery and had specifically avoided buying the type of pots Matthew purchased because they were not high-quality enough, Matthew's actions could be argued to prejudicially affect the carrying on of the business with "regard being had to the nature of the business." As the nature of the business was for quality products, Matthew's purchase could be grounds for dissolution.

Paragraph D. Of Section 35 of the New South Wales Partnership Act of 1892 provides for Court-directed partnership termination, "when a partner, other than the party suing, willfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise conducts himself or herself in matters relating to the partnership business so that it is not reasonably practicable for the other partner or partners to carry on the business in partnership with the partner." Matthew's purchase definitely constituted a breach of the partnership agreement,...
[ View Full Essay]