Hardback
Agency and Partnership Law
This magisterial three-volume set presents the leading academic articles on agency law and partnership law, both classic and contemporary, serving as a valuable research tool for scholars and practitioners. The collection begins by focusing on topics such as the fundamental concepts of agency law, the fiduciary duties of agents, indemnification, vicarious liability and notice. It moves on to discussion of several important issues relating to partnership law, such as statutory development and reform, the entity-aggregate debate and single-person partnership. Together with an original introduction by the editors, this collection provides a comprehensive overview of the most significant matters in the fields of agency and partnership law.
More Information
Critical Acclaim
Contributors
Contents
More Information
This magisterial three-volume set presents the leading academic articles on agency law and partnership law, both classic and contemporary, serving as a valuable research tool for scholars and practitioners. The collection begins by focusing on topics such as the fundamental concepts of agency law, the fiduciary duties of agents, indemnification, vicarious liability and notice. It moves on to discussion of several important issues relating to partnership law, such as statutory development and reform, the entity-aggregate debate and single-person partnership. Together with an original introduction by the editors, this collection provides a comprehensive overview of the most significant matters in the fields of agency and partnership law.
Critical Acclaim
‘Mark Loewenstein and Robert Hillman, who are themselves highly knowledgeable and widely respected scholars of agency and partnership law, have done a great service by assembling a collection of leading articles by giants of the field. Many of these articles were game changers, shifting the law in important ways. All of them reward close reading by anyone seeking to build their knowledge of this important area of the law.’
– Stephen M. Bainbridge, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, US
‘Never before have the foundational works of modern business organization law been assembled in a single work. Professors Loewenstein and Hillman have brilliantly selected and insightfully organized a comprehensive collection of essays that cover not just fields of agency and partnership law, but also touchstones for understanding modern organization law. Thus, the three-volume work is understated in its title, but this soon disappears once you enter its contents.’
– James D. Cox, Duke University, School of Law, US
– Stephen M. Bainbridge, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, US
‘Never before have the foundational works of modern business organization law been assembled in a single work. Professors Loewenstein and Hillman have brilliantly selected and insightfully organized a comprehensive collection of essays that cover not just fields of agency and partnership law, but also touchstones for understanding modern organization law. Thus, the three-volume work is understated in its title, but this soon disappears once you enter its contents.’
– James D. Cox, Duke University, School of Law, US
Contributors
68 articles, dating from 1891 to 2016
Contributors include: R. Barnett, A. Bromberg, D. DeMott, R. Gilson, R. Hillman, L. Kornhauser, D.C. Langevoort, L. Ribstein, G.T. Schwartz, D. Weidner
Contributors include: R. Barnett, A. Bromberg, D. DeMott, R. Gilson, R. Hillman, L. Kornhauser, D.C. Langevoort, L. Ribstein, G.T. Schwartz, D. Weidner
Contents
Contents:
Acknowledgements
Introduction Mark J. Loewenstein and Robert W. Hillman
AGENCY
PART I FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
1. O. W. Holmes, Jr. (1891), ‘Agency’, Harvard Law Review, IV (8), March, 345–64
2. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1891), ‘Agency II’, Harvard Law Review, V (1), April, 1–23
3. John H. Wigmore (1894), ‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: Its History’, Harvard Law Review, VII (6), January, 315–37
4. John H. Wigmore (1894), ‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: Its History – II: Harm Done by Servants and other Agents: 1300–1850’, Harvard Law Review, VII (7), February, 383–405
PART II THE AGENCY RELATIONSHIP IN IMPORTANT CONTEXTS
5. J. Dennis Hynes (1991), ‘Lender Liability: The Dilemma of the Controlling Creditor’, Tennessee Law Review, 58, Summer, 635–68
6. Lyman P. Q. Johnson and David Millon (2005), ‘Recalling Why Corporate Officers Are Fiduciaries’, William and Mary Law Review, 46 (5), 1597–653
7. Grace M. Giesel (2007), ‘Client Responsibility for Lawyer Conduct: Examining the Agency Nature of the Lawyer-Client Relationship’, Nebraska Law Review, 86 (2), 346–95
8. Donald C. Langevoort (2003), ‘Agency Law Inside the Corporation: Problems of Candor and Knowledge’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 71 (4), Summer, 1187–231
9. Jill E. Fisch and Hillary A. Sale (2003), ‘The Securities Analyst as Agent: Rethinking the Regulation of Analysts’, Iowa Law Review, 88, 1035–98
10. Anthony J. Bellia Jr. (2001), ‘Contracting with Electronic Agents’, Emory Law Journal, 50, 1047–92
PART III THE AGENT’S FIDUCIARY DUTIES
11. Austin W. Scott (1949), ‘The Fiduciary Principle’, California Law Review, 37 (4), December, 539–55
12. Robert Cooter and Bradley J. Freedman (1991), ‘The Fiduciary Relationship: Its Economic Character and Legal Consequences’, New York University Law Review, 66, October, 1045–75
13. Deborah A. DeMott (1988), ‘Beyond Metaphor: An Analysis of Fiduciary Obligation’, Duke Law Journal, 1988, 879–924
14. Tamar Frankel (1983), ‘Fiduciary Law’, California Law Review, 71 (3), May, 795–836
15. Deborah A. DeMott (2014), ‘The Fiduciary Character of Agency and the Interpretation of Instructions’, in Andrew S. Gold and Paul B. Miller (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Fiduciary Law, Part IV, Chapter 16, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 321–38
PART IV INDEMNIFICATION
16. Roscoe Steffen (1958), ‘The Employer’s “Indemnity” Action’, University of Chicago Law Review, 25 (3), Spring, 465–94
17. Glanville Williams (1957), ‘Vicarious Liability and the Master’s Indemnity’, Modern Law Review, 20 (3), May, 220–35
18. Glanville Williams (1957), ‘Vicarious Liability and the Master’s Indemnity, Continued’, Modern Law Review, 20 (5), September, 437–46
PART V VICARIOUS LIABILITY
19. Gary T. Schwartz (1996), ‘The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability’, Southern California Law Review, 69, 1739–67
20. Alan O. Sykes (1988), ‘The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines’, Harvard Law Review, 101 (3), January, 563–609
21. B. Glenn George (1999), ‘Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment: The Buck Stops Where?’, Wake Forest Law Review, 34 (1), 1–25
PART VI UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL DOCTRINE
22. Floyd R. Mechem (1910), ‘The Liability of an Undisclosed Principal I’, Harvard Law Review, 23 (7), May, 513–30
23. Floyd R. Mechem (1910), ‘The Liability of an Undisclosed Principal II’, Harvard Law Review, 23 (8), June, 590–602
24. James Barr Ames (1909), ‘Undisclosed Principal – His Rights and Liabilities’, Yale Law Journal, XVIII (7), May, 443–53
25. Mark A. Sargent and Arnold Rochvarg (1982), ‘A Reexamination of the Agency Doctrine of Election’, University of Miami Law Review, 36 (3), 411–37
26. Randy E. Barnett (1987), ‘Squaring Undisclosed Agency Law with Contract Theory’, California Law Review, 75 (6), December, 1969–2003
PART VII NOTICE, KNOWLEDGE AND IMPUTATION
27. Warren A. Seavey (1916), ‘Notice through an Agent’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 65 (1), November, 1–38
28. Maurice H. Merrill (1936), ‘Unforgettable Knowledge: A Study in the Law of Notice’, Michigan Law Review, 34 (4), February, 474–93
29. Mark J. Loewenstein (2013), ‘Imputation, the Adverse Interest Exception, and the Curious Case of the Restatement (Third) of Agency’, University of Colorado Law Review, 84 (2), 305–66
Volume II
Contents:
Introduction An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I
AGENCY
PART VIII AGENCY COST THEORY
1. Samuel Issacharoff and Daniel R. Ortiz (1999), ‘Governing through Intermediaries’, Virginia Law Review, Symposium: The Law and Economics of Elections, 85 (8), November, 1627–70
2. Douglas G. Baird (1991), ‘Fraudulent Conveyances, Agency Costs, and Leveraged Buyouts’, Journal of Legal Studies, XX (1), January, 1–24
PART IX AN AGENT’S AUTHORITY
3. Gregory Scott Crespi (2005), ‘The Proposed Abolition of Inherent Agency Authority by the Restatement (Third) of Agency: An Incomplete Solution’, Santa Clara Law Review, 45 (2), 337–82
4. Deborah A. DeMott (2014), ‘The Contours and Composition of Agency Doctrine: Perspectives from History and Theory on Inherent Agency Power’, University of Illinois Law Review, 2014 (5), 1813–33
PART X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
5. Eric Rasmusen (2004), ‘Agency Law and Contract Formation’, American Law and Economics Review, 6 (2), Fall, 369–409
6. Lewis A. Kornhauser (1982), ‘An Economic Analysis of the Choice Between Enterprise and Personal Liability for Accidents’, California Law Review, 70 (6), December, 1345–92
PART XI INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
7. Benjamin Means and Joseph A. Seiner (2016), ‘Navigating the Uber Economy’, University of California, Davis Law Review, 49 (4), April, 1511– 46
8. Roscoe T. Steffen (1935), ‘Independent Contractor and the Good Life’, University of Chicago Law Review, 2 (4), June, 501–32
PARTNERSHIP PART I STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM: THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACTS (UPA AND RUPA)
9. William Draper Lewis (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act’, Yale Law Journal, XXIV (8), June, 617–41
10. Judson A. Crane (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act: A Criticism’, Harvard Law Review, 28 (8), June, 762–89
11. William Draper Lewis (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act – A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism’, Harvard Law Review, 29 (2), December, 158–92
12. Donald J. Weidner and John W. Larson (1993), ‘The Revised Uniform Partnership Act: The Reporters’ Overview’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 1–44
13. Larry E. Ribstein (1993), ‘The Revised Uniform Partnership Act: Not Ready for Prime Time’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 45–82
PART II THE ENTITY-AGGREGATE DEBATE
14. Gary S. Rosin (1989), ‘The Entity-Aggregate Dispute: Conceptualism and Functionalism in Partnership Law’, Arkansas Law Review, 42, 395–466
PART III SINGLE PERSON PARTNERSHIP
15. Robert W. Hillman and Donald J. Weidner (2012), ‘Partners without Partners: The Legal Status of Single Person Partnerships’, Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, XVII (2), 449–73
PART IV RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PARTNERS: CONTRACTS AND FIDUCIARY STATUS
16. Allan W. Vestal (1993), ‘Fundamental Contractarian Error in the Revised Uniform Partnership Act of 1992’, Boston University Law Review, 73 (4), September, 523–79
17. J. Dennis Hynes (1997), ‘Freedom of Contract, Fiduciary Duties, and Partnerships: The Bargain Principle and the Law of Agency’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 54 (2), 439–64
18. Robert W. Hillman (1987), ‘Private Ordering Within Partnerships’, University of Miami Law Review, 41 (3), January, 425–71
19. Larry E. Ribstein (2005), ‘Are Partners Fiduciaries?’, University of Illinois Law Review, 2005 (1), 209–51
20. Claire Moore Dickerson (1993), ‘Is it Appropriate to Appropriate Corporate Concepts: Fiduciary Duties and the Revised Uniform Partnership Act’, University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 111–57
21. Paul Gompers and Josh Lerner (1996), ‘The Use of Covenants: An Empirical Analysis of Venture Partnership Agreements’, Journal of Law and Economics, XXXIX (2), October, 463–98
22. Rutheford B. Campbell, Jr. (2007–2008), ‘Bumping Along the Bottom: Abandoned Principles and Failed Fiduciary Standards in Uniform Partnership and LLC Statutes’, Kentucky Law Journal, 96 (2), 163–95
23. J. William Callison (1997), ‘Blind Men and Elephants: Fiduciary Duties under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, and Beyond’, Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law, 1 (1), Spring, 109–64
24. Myron T. Steele (2007), ‘Judicial Scrutiny of Fiduciary Duties in Delaware Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies’, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 32 (1), 1–32
Volume III
Contents:
Acknowledgements
Introduction An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I
PARTNERSHIP
PART V PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY
1. Edward S. Merrill (1993), ‘Partnership Property and Partnership Authority Under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 83–105
PART VI LIMITED LIABILITY
2. Alan L. Feld (1969), ‘The “Control” Test for Limited Partnerships’, Harvard Law Review, 82 (7), May, 1471–84
3. Larry E. Ribstein (1992), ‘The Deregulation of Limited Liability and the Death of Partnership’, Washington University Law Quarterly: Symposium on Corporate Law and Finance, 70 (2), January, 417–75
4. Robert W. Hillman (1992), ‘Limited Liability and Externalization of Risk: A Comment on the Death of Partnership’, Washington University Law Quarterly: Symposium on Corporate Law and Finance, 70 (2), January, 477–87
5. Robert R. Keatinge, Allan G. Donn, George W. Coleman and Elizabeth G. Hester (1995), ‘Limited Liability Partnerships: The Next Step in the Evolution of the Unincorporated Business Organization’, Business Lawyer, 51 (1), November, 147–207
6. Robert W. Hamilton (1995), ‘Registered Limited Liability Partnerships: Present at the Birth (Nearly)’, University of Colorado Law Review, 66, 1065–103
PART VII DISSOLUTION AND BANKRUPTCY
7. Alan R. Bromberg (1965), ‘Partnership Dissolution – Causes, Consequences, and Cures’, Texas Law Review, 43, 631–68
8. Christine Hurt (2015), ‘The Limited Liability Partnership in Bankruptcy’, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 89 (4), Fall, 567–606
PART VIII THE CHANGING NATURE OF PARTNERSHIP
9. Robert W. Hillman (2005), ‘Law, Culture, and the Lore of Partnership: Of Entrepreneurs, Accountability, and the Evolving Status of Partners’, Wake Forest Law Review, 40 (3), Fall, 793–825
PART IX PARTNERSHIP LAW AND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM
10. Serena L. Kafker (1993), ‘Golden Handcuffs: Enforceability of Non-Competition Clauses in Professional Partnership Agreements of Accountants, Physicians, and Attorneys’, American Business Law Journal, 31 (1), May, 31–58
11. Ronald J. Gilson and Robert H. Mnookin (1985), ‘Sharing Among the Human Capitalists: An Economic Inquiry into the Corporate Law Firm and How Partners Split Profits’, Stanford Law Review: Symposium on the Law Firm as a Social Institution, 37 (2), January, 313–92
12. Robert W. Hillman (1988), ‘Law Firms and Their Partners: The Law and Ethics of Grabbing and Leaving’, Texas Law Review, 67 (1), November, 1–61
13. Jennifer J. Johnson (1995), ‘Limited Liability for Lawyers: General Partners Need Not Apply’, Business Lawyer, 51 (1), November, 85–145
14. Susan Saab Fortney (1998), ‘Professional Responsibility and Liability Issues Related to Limited Liability Law Partnerships’, South Texas Law Review, 39 (2), 399–444
15. Douglas R. Richmond (2010), ‘The Partnership Paradigm and Law Firm Non-equity Partners’, Kansas Law Review, 58 (3), 507–51
Index
Acknowledgements
Introduction Mark J. Loewenstein and Robert W. Hillman
AGENCY
PART I FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
1. O. W. Holmes, Jr. (1891), ‘Agency’, Harvard Law Review, IV (8), March, 345–64
2. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1891), ‘Agency II’, Harvard Law Review, V (1), April, 1–23
3. John H. Wigmore (1894), ‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: Its History’, Harvard Law Review, VII (6), January, 315–37
4. John H. Wigmore (1894), ‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: Its History – II: Harm Done by Servants and other Agents: 1300–1850’, Harvard Law Review, VII (7), February, 383–405
PART II THE AGENCY RELATIONSHIP IN IMPORTANT CONTEXTS
5. J. Dennis Hynes (1991), ‘Lender Liability: The Dilemma of the Controlling Creditor’, Tennessee Law Review, 58, Summer, 635–68
6. Lyman P. Q. Johnson and David Millon (2005), ‘Recalling Why Corporate Officers Are Fiduciaries’, William and Mary Law Review, 46 (5), 1597–653
7. Grace M. Giesel (2007), ‘Client Responsibility for Lawyer Conduct: Examining the Agency Nature of the Lawyer-Client Relationship’, Nebraska Law Review, 86 (2), 346–95
8. Donald C. Langevoort (2003), ‘Agency Law Inside the Corporation: Problems of Candor and Knowledge’, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 71 (4), Summer, 1187–231
9. Jill E. Fisch and Hillary A. Sale (2003), ‘The Securities Analyst as Agent: Rethinking the Regulation of Analysts’, Iowa Law Review, 88, 1035–98
10. Anthony J. Bellia Jr. (2001), ‘Contracting with Electronic Agents’, Emory Law Journal, 50, 1047–92
PART III THE AGENT’S FIDUCIARY DUTIES
11. Austin W. Scott (1949), ‘The Fiduciary Principle’, California Law Review, 37 (4), December, 539–55
12. Robert Cooter and Bradley J. Freedman (1991), ‘The Fiduciary Relationship: Its Economic Character and Legal Consequences’, New York University Law Review, 66, October, 1045–75
13. Deborah A. DeMott (1988), ‘Beyond Metaphor: An Analysis of Fiduciary Obligation’, Duke Law Journal, 1988, 879–924
14. Tamar Frankel (1983), ‘Fiduciary Law’, California Law Review, 71 (3), May, 795–836
15. Deborah A. DeMott (2014), ‘The Fiduciary Character of Agency and the Interpretation of Instructions’, in Andrew S. Gold and Paul B. Miller (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Fiduciary Law, Part IV, Chapter 16, New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 321–38
PART IV INDEMNIFICATION
16. Roscoe Steffen (1958), ‘The Employer’s “Indemnity” Action’, University of Chicago Law Review, 25 (3), Spring, 465–94
17. Glanville Williams (1957), ‘Vicarious Liability and the Master’s Indemnity’, Modern Law Review, 20 (3), May, 220–35
18. Glanville Williams (1957), ‘Vicarious Liability and the Master’s Indemnity, Continued’, Modern Law Review, 20 (5), September, 437–46
PART V VICARIOUS LIABILITY
19. Gary T. Schwartz (1996), ‘The Hidden and Fundamental Issue of Employer Vicarious Liability’, Southern California Law Review, 69, 1739–67
20. Alan O. Sykes (1988), ‘The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines’, Harvard Law Review, 101 (3), January, 563–609
21. B. Glenn George (1999), ‘Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment: The Buck Stops Where?’, Wake Forest Law Review, 34 (1), 1–25
PART VI UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL DOCTRINE
22. Floyd R. Mechem (1910), ‘The Liability of an Undisclosed Principal I’, Harvard Law Review, 23 (7), May, 513–30
23. Floyd R. Mechem (1910), ‘The Liability of an Undisclosed Principal II’, Harvard Law Review, 23 (8), June, 590–602
24. James Barr Ames (1909), ‘Undisclosed Principal – His Rights and Liabilities’, Yale Law Journal, XVIII (7), May, 443–53
25. Mark A. Sargent and Arnold Rochvarg (1982), ‘A Reexamination of the Agency Doctrine of Election’, University of Miami Law Review, 36 (3), 411–37
26. Randy E. Barnett (1987), ‘Squaring Undisclosed Agency Law with Contract Theory’, California Law Review, 75 (6), December, 1969–2003
PART VII NOTICE, KNOWLEDGE AND IMPUTATION
27. Warren A. Seavey (1916), ‘Notice through an Agent’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, 65 (1), November, 1–38
28. Maurice H. Merrill (1936), ‘Unforgettable Knowledge: A Study in the Law of Notice’, Michigan Law Review, 34 (4), February, 474–93
29. Mark J. Loewenstein (2013), ‘Imputation, the Adverse Interest Exception, and the Curious Case of the Restatement (Third) of Agency’, University of Colorado Law Review, 84 (2), 305–66
Volume II
Contents:
Introduction An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I
AGENCY
PART VIII AGENCY COST THEORY
1. Samuel Issacharoff and Daniel R. Ortiz (1999), ‘Governing through Intermediaries’, Virginia Law Review, Symposium: The Law and Economics of Elections, 85 (8), November, 1627–70
2. Douglas G. Baird (1991), ‘Fraudulent Conveyances, Agency Costs, and Leveraged Buyouts’, Journal of Legal Studies, XX (1), January, 1–24
PART IX AN AGENT’S AUTHORITY
3. Gregory Scott Crespi (2005), ‘The Proposed Abolition of Inherent Agency Authority by the Restatement (Third) of Agency: An Incomplete Solution’, Santa Clara Law Review, 45 (2), 337–82
4. Deborah A. DeMott (2014), ‘The Contours and Composition of Agency Doctrine: Perspectives from History and Theory on Inherent Agency Power’, University of Illinois Law Review, 2014 (5), 1813–33
PART X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
5. Eric Rasmusen (2004), ‘Agency Law and Contract Formation’, American Law and Economics Review, 6 (2), Fall, 369–409
6. Lewis A. Kornhauser (1982), ‘An Economic Analysis of the Choice Between Enterprise and Personal Liability for Accidents’, California Law Review, 70 (6), December, 1345–92
PART XI INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
7. Benjamin Means and Joseph A. Seiner (2016), ‘Navigating the Uber Economy’, University of California, Davis Law Review, 49 (4), April, 1511– 46
8. Roscoe T. Steffen (1935), ‘Independent Contractor and the Good Life’, University of Chicago Law Review, 2 (4), June, 501–32
PARTNERSHIP PART I STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AND REFORM: THE UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACTS (UPA AND RUPA)
9. William Draper Lewis (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act’, Yale Law Journal, XXIV (8), June, 617–41
10. Judson A. Crane (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act: A Criticism’, Harvard Law Review, 28 (8), June, 762–89
11. William Draper Lewis (1915), ‘The Uniform Partnership Act – A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism’, Harvard Law Review, 29 (2), December, 158–92
12. Donald J. Weidner and John W. Larson (1993), ‘The Revised Uniform Partnership Act: The Reporters’ Overview’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 1–44
13. Larry E. Ribstein (1993), ‘The Revised Uniform Partnership Act: Not Ready for Prime Time’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 45–82
PART II THE ENTITY-AGGREGATE DEBATE
14. Gary S. Rosin (1989), ‘The Entity-Aggregate Dispute: Conceptualism and Functionalism in Partnership Law’, Arkansas Law Review, 42, 395–466
PART III SINGLE PERSON PARTNERSHIP
15. Robert W. Hillman and Donald J. Weidner (2012), ‘Partners without Partners: The Legal Status of Single Person Partnerships’, Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, XVII (2), 449–73
PART IV RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PARTNERS: CONTRACTS AND FIDUCIARY STATUS
16. Allan W. Vestal (1993), ‘Fundamental Contractarian Error in the Revised Uniform Partnership Act of 1992’, Boston University Law Review, 73 (4), September, 523–79
17. J. Dennis Hynes (1997), ‘Freedom of Contract, Fiduciary Duties, and Partnerships: The Bargain Principle and the Law of Agency’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 54 (2), 439–64
18. Robert W. Hillman (1987), ‘Private Ordering Within Partnerships’, University of Miami Law Review, 41 (3), January, 425–71
19. Larry E. Ribstein (2005), ‘Are Partners Fiduciaries?’, University of Illinois Law Review, 2005 (1), 209–51
20. Claire Moore Dickerson (1993), ‘Is it Appropriate to Appropriate Corporate Concepts: Fiduciary Duties and the Revised Uniform Partnership Act’, University of Colorado Law Review, 64, 111–57
21. Paul Gompers and Josh Lerner (1996), ‘The Use of Covenants: An Empirical Analysis of Venture Partnership Agreements’, Journal of Law and Economics, XXXIX (2), October, 463–98
22. Rutheford B. Campbell, Jr. (2007–2008), ‘Bumping Along the Bottom: Abandoned Principles and Failed Fiduciary Standards in Uniform Partnership and LLC Statutes’, Kentucky Law Journal, 96 (2), 163–95
23. J. William Callison (1997), ‘Blind Men and Elephants: Fiduciary Duties under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, and Beyond’, Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law, 1 (1), Spring, 109–64
24. Myron T. Steele (2007), ‘Judicial Scrutiny of Fiduciary Duties in Delaware Limited Partnerships and Limited Liability Companies’, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 32 (1), 1–32
Volume III
Contents:
Acknowledgements
Introduction An introduction to all three volumes by the editors appears in Volume I
PARTNERSHIP
PART V PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY
1. Edward S. Merrill (1993), ‘Partnership Property and Partnership Authority Under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act’, Business Lawyer, 49 (1), November, 83–105
PART VI LIMITED LIABILITY
2. Alan L. Feld (1969), ‘The “Control” Test for Limited Partnerships’, Harvard Law Review, 82 (7), May, 1471–84
3. Larry E. Ribstein (1992), ‘The Deregulation of Limited Liability and the Death of Partnership’, Washington University Law Quarterly: Symposium on Corporate Law and Finance, 70 (2), January, 417–75
4. Robert W. Hillman (1992), ‘Limited Liability and Externalization of Risk: A Comment on the Death of Partnership’, Washington University Law Quarterly: Symposium on Corporate Law and Finance, 70 (2), January, 477–87
5. Robert R. Keatinge, Allan G. Donn, George W. Coleman and Elizabeth G. Hester (1995), ‘Limited Liability Partnerships: The Next Step in the Evolution of the Unincorporated Business Organization’, Business Lawyer, 51 (1), November, 147–207
6. Robert W. Hamilton (1995), ‘Registered Limited Liability Partnerships: Present at the Birth (Nearly)’, University of Colorado Law Review, 66, 1065–103
PART VII DISSOLUTION AND BANKRUPTCY
7. Alan R. Bromberg (1965), ‘Partnership Dissolution – Causes, Consequences, and Cures’, Texas Law Review, 43, 631–68
8. Christine Hurt (2015), ‘The Limited Liability Partnership in Bankruptcy’, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 89 (4), Fall, 567–606
PART VIII THE CHANGING NATURE OF PARTNERSHIP
9. Robert W. Hillman (2005), ‘Law, Culture, and the Lore of Partnership: Of Entrepreneurs, Accountability, and the Evolving Status of Partners’, Wake Forest Law Review, 40 (3), Fall, 793–825
PART IX PARTNERSHIP LAW AND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM
10. Serena L. Kafker (1993), ‘Golden Handcuffs: Enforceability of Non-Competition Clauses in Professional Partnership Agreements of Accountants, Physicians, and Attorneys’, American Business Law Journal, 31 (1), May, 31–58
11. Ronald J. Gilson and Robert H. Mnookin (1985), ‘Sharing Among the Human Capitalists: An Economic Inquiry into the Corporate Law Firm and How Partners Split Profits’, Stanford Law Review: Symposium on the Law Firm as a Social Institution, 37 (2), January, 313–92
12. Robert W. Hillman (1988), ‘Law Firms and Their Partners: The Law and Ethics of Grabbing and Leaving’, Texas Law Review, 67 (1), November, 1–61
13. Jennifer J. Johnson (1995), ‘Limited Liability for Lawyers: General Partners Need Not Apply’, Business Lawyer, 51 (1), November, 85–145
14. Susan Saab Fortney (1998), ‘Professional Responsibility and Liability Issues Related to Limited Liability Law Partnerships’, South Texas Law Review, 39 (2), 399–444
15. Douglas R. Richmond (2010), ‘The Partnership Paradigm and Law Firm Non-equity Partners’, Kansas Law Review, 58 (3), 507–51
Index
