on
the
above
cate
.
ponders
were
decided
business
Case
Linavoidable
Cause
showing
piecemed
Distribution
Of
cash
A
Lid
Partners capital
80,000
95,000
9. 45,000
profit & loss AIC 10,000
Bills Payble 20000
sunday creditors 10,000
plant & machinery
furniture & filding
sunday Debtors
stock
cash in hand
35000
40,000
C
12.00
68,000
48oo
2, 60,000
Dihs
2,60,000
The assets were realised as dollows a
Date
15th April 2019
No. of Realisation.
frost Realiscution
second Realiscelton
Third Reellisation
Amount
50,000
65,000
75,000
24th
may 2014
30th June 2019
i
you
2. stuitement
erre required to prepare
1. stellement showing surplus capital
as per
per proportionate capital method.
Answers
Answer:
thanks for free points
Answer:
Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who engaged in commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yao's partner. After convening for a few times, Lim, Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to acquire 2 fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of P 3.35 Million.
That they borrowed P 3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, to finance the venture.
That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed a Deed of Sale over these 2 boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim.
That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing, re-equipping, repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by Chua and Yao.
That because of the " unavailability of funds: Jesus Lim again extended a loan to the partnership in the amount of P 1 million secured by a check, because of which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of 2 other boats, Chua's FB Lady Anne Mel and Yao's FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim..
That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao, and Chua bought nets from respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name. They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was no a signatory to the agreement.
That subsequently, Chua and Yao filed a civil case against Lim Tong Lim for a) declaration of nullity of commercial documents, b) reformation of contracts, C) declaration of ownership of fishing boats, d) injunction, and 5) damage.
The case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreement executed between the parties-litigants, and under this agreement the parties agreed to sell the 4 vessels for 5,750,000.00 including the fishing nets and said proceeds shall be applied as full payment for P 3,250,000.00 in favor of JL Holdings and / or Lim Tong Lim. That if the same will be sold to a higher price than 5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided equally to them three; and if the proceeds will be less than said amount, whatever deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holdings by them in the same division.
Buyers failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats, hence private respondent filed a collection suit aginst Chua, Yao and Petioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners on the allegation that their purported corporation is nonexistent as shown by a Certification from SEC. Lower Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment by by attaching the fishing nets on the board of FB Lourdes.
Instead of answering, Chua filed a manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay, Yao, filed an answer but because of his failure to appear in the subsequent hearing, he waived his rights to cross examine witnesses and to present evidence ion his behalf.
Lim Tong Lim filed an answer with counterclaim and corss claim and moved for the lifting of the attachment. Trial court maintained the Writ and upon motion of the respondent ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Fishing Gear won the bidding for P 900,000.00 and deposited the same to the court, and that the three were jointly liable to pay the respondent.
Both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the 3 based on:
please mark me as brainlist