This particular question is under the law of Partnership.

A partnership Business was defined

under Section 2(1) of the Partnership Act Cap 30A as the relationship which exists between
persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit. It is also of profound
importance to define a partner. under section The term partner means a person who has entered
into a relation of partnership and since partnership is the relation subsisting between persons
carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.

Firstly, according to that fact of the case, George and Andrea were the owners of the Partnership
business and they shared both participate in the management of the business and shared profits
equally. This is in accordance with the definition of a partnership business that George and
Andrea were carrying out a business in common with a view of making profit hence this fulfils
the requirements for the existence of a partnership business. It is also important to mention that
legally, it is not necessary that a partnership agreement should be written though in some
instances partners may favour to reduce the agreement to a written one.
Secondly, before 2015, Bill was employed by the owners of the firm, at this point Bill was not
yet a member of the Partnership until the beginning of 2015. In the case of Akber Alibhali V
Fidahussein & Co. (The High Court of Tanzania) Justice Duff stated that a partner cannot be an
employee of partnership since the position involves his being employer and employee. This
clearly shows that George was only an employee before 2015 than being a partner of the firm
meaning that he can not be liable for all the debts of the Partnership incurred before 2015.
Thirdly, the fact that from the beginning of 2015 Bill was also involved in decision making
concerning the business and that he began to get paid an equal share of the profits shows that the
real intention of George and Andrea was to incorporate Bill as a member of the Partnership. In
Cox V Hickman says that although sharing of profits raises a strong presumption of a partnership,
it is important to consider the real intention of the parties and all the facts and not only just a
mere participation in the profits. In conformity with findings of the case above, Bill was taking
party in decision making, sharing of profits, some stationary and business forms were in his
name. All these fact proves that at this point Bill was already a member of the Partnership hence
the rule that all partners are collectively liable for the acts or omissions of each other was already
binding to all the members including Bill.
According to the facts of the case there is a general that last only during the will of the partners.
Sec 28 of the partnership Act 2015 provides resignation of a partner. It states that a partner may
resign from a partnership only by giving to the other partners notice of intention to do so not less
than three months before the resignation is to take effect. Therefore the notice of resignation that
was given by Billy did not take effect until six months, this means that when the claims were

brought against the firm, he was still bound by agreements of the Firm hence he is liable for
aforementioned acts and omissions of other parties of the Firm.
There is a general rule that the firm is liable for torts committed against third parties by any of
the partners in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, Bill, George and Andrea may all be
collectively liable to for the breach of duty of care (omissions) by George that caused harm to a
customer because the negligent statement was represented during ordinary course of business.
Notwithstanding the fact that George accepted that he made the statement out of negligence, the
gives any third party or victim of the tort kind of acts or omission any option to sue the owner of
the firm collectively.
On the other hand the sale of the pet snake to the third party seems to sort of contractual
obligation. This is because the negligent statement made by one of the partners becomes a
statement of fact which turned out to be misrepresentation when the pet snake was discovered to
be harmful and amount to breach of contract. The of partnerships provides an option for victim
of the breach to sue George and not Bill and Andrea. In this case Bill is likely to be exonerated
from liability because George accepted his omission so liability is likely to be imposed on him
and him only not collectively. It also fair enough to impose liability on George only and exempt
Bill and Andrea from incurring liability so that business persons will be careful when making
representations to their customers.
duration of liability of a partner start from the time a person becomes a partner until resolutions
and winding up of the business. therefore, Bill is liable collectively with other two partners for
any acts or omissions that happened from the beginning of January until to date. this means that
as mentioned above, Bills resignation notice of 6 weeks is not enough as per the requirement of
section 28 of the Partnership Act .
Bill may also be liable for the later claim that was put forward against Exotic Creatures buy a
regular customer although he had already issued a notice that he was leaving the partnership. As
per section 28 of the Partnership Act no.16 of 2012, a notice of resignation must be given or
made known to other parties three months prior to resignation. This explains that George was
still a member and his resignation did not take effect because it happen before six months and
some of the assets of the partnership were still in his name. This means that he is still liable for
acts and omission of other partners.
Bill may also argue may also argue that he was only an agent of the Andrea and George as these
two appears to be the the principal owners of Exotic creatures. This may to some extend exempt
Bill from liability but however this defence on the part of Bill cannot complete due to the
circumstances aforementioned that may make him a partner of Exotic Creatures.

In summation, according to the analysis above, it imperative that the chances that Bill may be
held liable for the acts and omission committed by other partners are very high as clearly
expounded above.