Outlet Co. v. Wade, 377 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). · Go Syfert
Outlet Co. v. Wade, 377 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Westover Hills Ltd. (wyb, 1985-01-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Westover Hills Ltd.
Bankr. D. Wyo. · 1985 · confidence medium
In re Rey Cafe Coffee Services, Ltd., 24 B.R. 680, 681 (Bkcy.D.N.M.1982); The Outlet Company v. Wade, 377 So.2d 722, 723 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979); Voudouris v. Heller & Co., 560 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); United States v. Coson, 286 F.2d 453 (9th Cir.1961).
discussed Cited "see" Virginia Partners, Ltd. v. Day (2×)
Ky. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Outlet Co. v. Wade, 377 So.2d 722 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979); Klein v. Weiss, 395 A.2d at 126 ; FSA 620.184; KRS 362.680; 60 Am.Jur.2d Partnership § 372 (1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The OUTLET COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Robert WADE, Robert S. Walsh and Richard D. Lundy, Individually and D/B/a Advantage Consultants, Appellees.
78-612/NT4-49.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov 15, 1979.
377 So. 2d 722
Hersey.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

B.J. Heller of Poole & Heller, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

HERSEY, GEORGE W., III, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment determining the appellee-defendant, Robert Wade, not to be a general partner in Advantage Consultants, an advertising agency partnership, and thus, not to be liable for the debts of the partnership. The liability of the partnership to plaintiff-appellant was established; however, there was no evidence that appellant relied or had a right to rely on the individual credit of appellee, Robert Wade.

In Vulcan Furniture Manufacturing Corp. v. Vaughn, 168 So.2d 760, 764 (Fla.2d DCA 1964), the court pointed out:

... It has been stated that the uniform limited partnership act proceeds on the assumption that no public policy requires a person who contributes to the capital of a business, acquires an interest in the profits and some degree of control over the conduct of the business, to become bound for the obligations of the business, provided creditors had no reason to believe at the times their credits were extended that such person was so bound.

Section 620.28, Florida Statutes (1977), a part of Florida's Limited Partnership law, provides:

(1) The rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall have no application to this part.

[*723] This may be taken to mean that a limited partnership may exist in Florida without strict compliance with the statute although the limited partnership was not recognized at common law. Such was the situation in the case at bar.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

LETTS, GAVIN K. and MOORE, JOHN H., II, Associate Judges, concur.