V Tan Chow Soo [1964] MLJ 399 states that the parties have entered into agreement as a syndicate to sell condensed milk and the respondent has registered the product as a trademark. The issue was that whether the trademark property belongs to the respondent or a partnership. The court has justified that this business is considered as a partnership even though it does not use name partnership because parties intend to carry on business in common with a view of profit. Steve, Joe, and Mike did not call themselves as partners but they agreed to continue training Lightning Spirit to win any prize money, which means they intended to carry on business in common to gain …show more content…
However, it does not always mean all partners must be active in affairs of business, but partner must carry on business. The case of Lang V James Morrison & Co Ltf [1911] 14 CLR 1 states that McFarland, who ran solo meat trading, contracted to ship to his trader, Morrison. Later, he took Lang and Keates as partners to manage a business as station agents and stock. One day, both McFarland and Keates were bankrupts and because of this, McFarland breached his contract with his trader, Morrison, and sued Lang. The court has justified that Lang was not involved in the meat business because he did not make decisions and operate business trading. Therefore, he and McFarland had separate books. In fact, three men did not show up in court and sue each other, but this case can be applied as the tasks are different from each other, but they kept carrying on business until the day when Lightning Spirit was sold to Sheikh of