
Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: October 8, 2013
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comAs highlighted in a recent New York appellate decision, having a written contract in place can avoid a lot of legal headaches down the road when it comes to oral partnership agreements.
In Gelman v. Buehler, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled that there was no breach of contract when one party withdrew from a partnership created by an oral agreement. The decision rested on a provision of the New York Partnership Law, which states that a partnership formed by oral agreement may be dissolved unilaterally if “no definite term or particular undertaking is specified” in the underlying agreement.
Recent business school graduates plaintiff Geoffrey Gelman and defendant Antonio Buehler decided to form a partnership with the goal of purchasing a business and later selling it for profit. The partnership was formed solely by oral agreement. After several month of pursuing investors, Buehler withdrew from the venture after Gelman refused his demand for majority ownership of the partnership. In the lawsuit that followed, the parties disputed whether the oral partnership agreement could be terminated unilaterally.
The appeals court ultimately concluded that the partnership agreement failed to satisfy the “definite term” or the “particular undertaking” requirement under the Partnership Law. As noted by the panel, “the parties were to solicit investments for an indefinite length of time; conduct an open-ended (possibly two-year) search for an unidentified business in an unknown business sector or industry; secure additional capital investments over the course of an unspecified period of time; and then purchase and operate the enterprise for an indeterminate duration (perhaps four to seven years) until a liquidity event would hopefully occur.” Given the lack of specificity, Buehler was free to withdraw.
In light of the court’s decision, below are some of the key provisions that should be included in any partnership agreement:
If you have any questions about these cases or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
As highlighted in a recent New York appellate decision, having a written contract in place can avoid a lot of legal headaches down the road when it comes to oral partnership agreements.
In Gelman v. Buehler, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled that there was no breach of contract when one party withdrew from a partnership created by an oral agreement. The decision rested on a provision of the New York Partnership Law, which states that a partnership formed by oral agreement may be dissolved unilaterally if “no definite term or particular undertaking is specified” in the underlying agreement.
Recent business school graduates plaintiff Geoffrey Gelman and defendant Antonio Buehler decided to form a partnership with the goal of purchasing a business and later selling it for profit. The partnership was formed solely by oral agreement. After several month of pursuing investors, Buehler withdrew from the venture after Gelman refused his demand for majority ownership of the partnership. In the lawsuit that followed, the parties disputed whether the oral partnership agreement could be terminated unilaterally.
The appeals court ultimately concluded that the partnership agreement failed to satisfy the “definite term” or the “particular undertaking” requirement under the Partnership Law. As noted by the panel, “the parties were to solicit investments for an indefinite length of time; conduct an open-ended (possibly two-year) search for an unidentified business in an unknown business sector or industry; secure additional capital investments over the course of an unspecified period of time; and then purchase and operate the enterprise for an indeterminate duration (perhaps four to seven years) until a liquidity event would hopefully occur.” Given the lack of specificity, Buehler was free to withdraw.
In light of the court’s decision, below are some of the key provisions that should be included in any partnership agreement:
If you have any questions about these cases or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!