LD 1609
pg. 21
Page 20 of 148 An Act To Establish the Uniform Partnership Act Page 22 of 148
Download Bill Text
LR 1469
Item 1

 
App. 1986), aff'd, 112 Idaho 1078, 739 P.2d 377 (1987); American
Bank of Commerce v. Covolo, 88 N.M. 405, 540 P.2d 1294 (1975).

 
8. Section 602(a) continues the traditional UPA Section 31(2)
rule that every partner has the power to withdraw from the
partnership at any time, which power can not be bargained away.
Section 103(b)(6) provides that the partnership agreement may not
vary the power to dissociate as a partner under Section 602(a),
except to require that the notice of withdrawal under Section
601(1) be in writing. The UPA was silent with respect to
requiring a written notice of withdrawal.

 
9. Under subsection (b)(7), the right of a partner to seek
court expulsion of another partner under Section 601(5) can not
be waived or varied (e.g., requiring a 90day notice) by
agreement. Section 601(5) refers to judicial expulsion on such
grounds as misconduct, breach of duty, or impracticability.

 
10. Under subsection (b)(8), the partnership agreement may
not vary the right of partners to have the partnership dissolved
and its business wound up under Section 801(4), (5), or (6).
Section 801(4) provides that the partnership must be wound up if
its business is unlawful. Section 801(5) provides for judicial
winding up in such circumstances as frustration of the firm's
economic purpose, partner misconduct, or impracticability.
Section 801(6) accords standing to transferees of an interest in
the partnership to seek judicial dissolution of the partnership
in specified circumstances.

 
11. Subsection (b)(9) makes clear that a limited liability
partnership may not designate the law of a State other than the
State where it filed its statement of qualification to govern its
internal affairs and the liability of its partners. See Sections
101(5), 106(b), and 202(a). Therefore, the selection of a State
within which to file a statement of qualification has important
choice of law ramifications, particularly where the partnership
was formed in another State. See Comments to Section 106(b).

 
12. Although stating the obvious, subsection(b)(10) provides
expressly that the rights of a third party under the Act may not
be restricted by an agreement among the partners to which the
third party has not agreed. A non-partner who is a party to an
agreement among the partners is, of course, bound. Cf. Section
703(c) (creditor joins release).

 
13. The Article 9 rules regarding conversions and mergers are
not listed in Section 103(b) as mandatory. Indeed, Section 907
states expressly that partnerships may be converted and merged in
any other manner provided by law. The effect of compliance with
Article 9 is to provide a "safe harbor" assuring


Page 20 of 148 Top of Page Page 22 of 148