Vinson v. Marton & Associates

764 P.2d 736, 159 Ariz. 1 (1988)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Vinson v. Marton & Associates

Arizona Court of Appeals
764 P.2d 736, 159 Ariz. 1 (1988)

Facts

Marton & Associates (defendant) was a real estate partnership with its sole asset 238 acres of land. In November 1985, John Vinson (plaintiff) entered into a purchase agreement, signed by Larry Melcher and John Silva, to purchase the partnership’s land. At the time of purchase, Melcher held powers of attorney from a few partners. On December 2, escrow instructions were signed by a majority of the partners. The partnership agreement authorized all business to be completed by majority consent of the partners. Later, the partnership refused to convey the property to Vinson. Vinson filed a breach-of-contract suit against the partnership and individual partners, seeking specific performance of the contract. When the suit was filed, some of the original partners were deceased. The partnership agreement stated the death of a partner would not dissolve the partnership. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the partnership as to breach of contract. The trial court relied on the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) § 9, which stated unanimous consent of the partners was needed for any act that would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership. The trial court reasoned that because some of the original partners were deceased, the provision of the partnership agreement that allowed a majority of the partners to conduct all business of the partnership could not be enforced upon successor partners and that if the agreement was silent, UPA controlled. Because the land was the sole asset, the sale of the property would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership, and the partners’ unanimous consent was required. Vinson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kleinschmidt, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership