Determine 'equivalent?'

[Kiva]

Hi,to date two lawyers haven't had the opportunity to answer my problem:In 1998, I signed a deal passed me with a company associate who desired to get free from the Mo. common relationship of three people. As thought, he decided to stay responsible for a sum corresponding to 1/3 of the $55,000 responsibility we'd in those days to the SBA loan thru Lender X--"until such time because the receivables established on Exhibit A, or such equal quantity continues to be gathered from the Partnership."actually, of the particular bills shown on Exhibit A, (whole $47,000), even today, significantly more than $15,000 from Customer Deadbeat remain uncollected -- even while we went of business in 2001.The outstanding companion and that I resolved with Bank X. Subsequently, to everybody's dismay, Bank X charged the deceased companion, and finally approved funds of 00 from him. He's currently suing me for 00.Whew! Lastly the "secret issue" -- Left man believes that function the rest of the companion and that I did (article 1998) for Customer Deadbeat and got taken care of matters as "equivalent quantity gathered..." I-say we, actually, needed to generate the brand new cash, hence it can't count from the bills shown. Performing new function and getting taken care of it's not "equal" not to getting taken care of outdated function. Am I right or wrong???I am talking about, If new function/new pay matters, then why even bother to add a summary of particular bills? "I'll remain responsible before you have gained and accumulated any $47,000" doesn't actually represent legitimate "thought," does it?When I stated, to date two lawyers aren't certain whether itis equal or not. Undoubtedly, by reasoning and arithmetic itis different... but think about "officially?"thanks very much.

[Nate]

I caution you this isn't a location for certain legal counsel regarding the proper meaning of one's agreement. For that, you have to consult agreement regional lawyers. Although Jack is attempting to become useful providing you with his undertake this, he's no attorney. I'm a lawyer, but centered on what's been published below it's difficult to inform you what that phrase means. At least I]n wish to browse the whole agreement and evaluate a state?s regulation before I would have the ability to let you know what this means. The truth that two local lawyers told you they certainly were unsure informs me the supply is ambigious. Because situation, courts usually will appear from what the events meant for this supply to complete in determining just how to translate it. Hence, it might fall towards the proof each part has concerning exactly what the offer was said to be. Your articles claim that you're not really certain exactly what the offer was, which further muddies the waters below. Who picked the agreement? If it's unclear and with the capacity of many understandings, the surfaces may usually construe it from the party that picked it.One thing appears obvious in my experience, however. The word providing for that equilivalent quantity should imply that various other resources could be deemed an alternative for gathering the particular bills which were mounted on the contract. When the contract was he?n be responsible until these particular bills were paid, then your supply concerning the equlivalent was totally worthless. Surfaces are impossible to express the phrase really was worthless. Therefore, the problem the courtroom is likey to determine is what resources were designed to qualify as alternatives for gathering the bills?

[Darnell]

Wait another. Our last message got all messed up. What I needed to totally state is:I understand Iam getting twisted up within this... And that Iam terrible at math... But, when the thought was he could be responsible before detailed Show A bills were paid or EQUAL, then these weren't paid.Yes. We gained and got taken care of extra function in the Deadbeat, however it was definitely not equivalent.(Evidence Of that's, we never recovered, and went of business.)When The contract meant to state he'd remain responsible until any potential $47k was gained and accumulated, then it will have stated that-- using the clarification that $47k was selected because the quantity since it means the receivables as detailed on Display A.But it generally does not state that.

[Bax]

And/or, does agreeing to remain liable until our receivables are collected... and/or any other money that totals the amount of those receivables (any other money you go out and earn) .... constitute "legal consideration" ? I don't see anything of value there.

[Aelfdane]

Hi 5u5an, I'm no Lawyer, nevertheless all of the period I believe I will comprehend many things.From the way in which I am aware that which you wrote is the fact that a former companion opted out, accepting to become accountable for 1/3 whole department owed. Does not matter to whom or just how much within our community. Hereis my issues...1. was a contract initiated at that time of seperation? 2. or was an opt-out choice contained in the original bylaws of one's relationship?3. did your former spouse have any function active in the restoration and number of overdue bills?4. did he make any funds at-all to lender x on his part which was decided he'd spend?the way in which I view it, While he decided out, Heis OUT! Heis out interval, until within the initial bylaws or even the opt-out contract he nevertheless had a controlling interest within the CO. due to any outstanding bills owed for selection... (He's due 1/3 cost for almost any outstanding bills owed towards the relationship upto the final evening he was someone, + attention when the situation may be.)Their 1/3 part of overall indebtedness is his responsibilty alone based on that which you stated.It seems which you and also the outstanding companion produced some new company which he's no-claim to period.When you and also the outstanding companion did finlly negotiate with lender x, your 1/3 each parts of the sum total owed was dissolved.Now bank x arrived around and needed to prosecute him because evidently he was not fullfiling his responsibility for his 1/3.And Today, heis sueing one to enable him pay that down since you along with your leftover companion probably worked a much better cope with lender x within the negotiation than he did also it made him angry!!for 10 cd's= 0.00>easily owed you 0.00 for 10-cd's i purchased from youit might be equivalent cost in the event that you decided to I would like to cut your yard @ $25.00 ea x4 =0.00if you mowed my yard for $25.00ea x4 and that I owed 0.00 for 10cdis, I'd then owe you 0.00Good Fortune... BL

[Tyronne]

Hi BL!Thanks so much for offering your take on this crazy thing!So far now, three attorneys have not been able/willing to answer the question! "Does re-earning new money count as the equivalent of being paid previous money." (Taxman was very helpful, and gave me encouraging food for thought. But at the end of the day, he couldn't really say. I wish he would re-enter this discussion.)To answer your questions: 1.
Departing partner hired an attorney to write this up for the two Remaining Pards (I am one) -- at the time of separation, yes.
2.
It was a general partnership, formed on a handshake. No bylaws, no nuttin...
3.
Nope, Departing Partner played no role whatsoever after we signed. He was outta there. Did not help us earn additional money.
4.
His only payments to Bank X against the SBA loan were when he was in the business, and we all three paid monthly. After he left, he made no payments until Bank X sued him and won an $82,000 judgment against him. He settled with Bank X for $7000, and that's what he's suing me for.He's not mad because we got a better settlement with the bank. He in fact got the better deal. We paid 20 cents on the dollar, he paid less than 10 cents on the dollar. He's mad because that 1998 agreement was designed/intended to get him OUT and not remain liable for the SBA loan.... and it didn't work. The bank got him, and his "consideration" to remain liable for our receivables is gonna get him!Yes. I think your example of equivalency with CDs and lawn mowing agrees with my opinion. In my case, it went more like this:I owe you $100. I tell you I cannot pay. But, I say, "you can mow my grass four times for $25 each time, and then we'll be even, cuz you'll then have your $100. You do not have the equivalent of a repaid $100... you have earned an additional $100... It's just crazy talk, right???? Right! It's not equivalent!!!But no attorney will concede that to me. This just amazes me!Thanks again for offering your opinion! I look forward to any feedback you may have regarding my answers to your questions!5

[Westin]

Yes, it's legal consideration.And I'll give you an example that does relate.You borrow 100 and agree to pay it back. Your promise to pay is consideration. It has value to the lender. You borrow 100, agree to pay it back, and your co-signer agrees to pay it back if you don't. Your co-signer's promise to pay is consideration and has value to the lender even though it is intended that the co-signer not have to pay it back as long as you do.

[Corgin]

"Say I owe you $100. Scenario A-- I give you ten CDs with a value of $10 each as an "equivalent."Scenario B -- I tell you I cannot pay you back the $100, but instead, you can come over and mow my lawn four times, and I'll give you $25 each time, and we're all square."Sorry, but neither of those examples is even remotely related to the agreement you have with your ex partner.You can't interpret the terms of a contract by giving examples of other things that have no relation to the contract.Makes as much sense as saying your debt would be forgiven if it rains tomorrow.

[Glinyeu]

Oops. Cut myself off!Again, I just don't see equivalency by the letter of the definition of equivalency. New money earned and paid is not the equivalent of invoices that were never paid....

[Cuddy]

"until such time as the receivables set forth on Exhibit A, or such equivalent amount has been collected by the Partnership."That's easy. And I'm not even an attorney."receivable set forth on ExhibitA" is a list of invoices that needs to be collected."equivalent amount" is the amount of dollars equal to the total dollar amount of the invoices.That means if you can't collect on the invoices but collect dollars some other way, the amount of the dollars counts.Otherwise why make the distinction?The fact that your partner handed you the contract leads me to believe that he wrote it just the way he wanted it and you signed it believing it was something that it wasn't.I think you owe 7000.However, if you don't agree, feel free to submit your theory to the judg and see if you can convince him and then come back and let us know.