|
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 |
|
|