Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 February 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 8850,A-1,8850 |
Citation | 355 So.2d 625 |
Parties | MARINE SERVICES, INC. v.INDUSTRIES, INC. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Jackson & Stovall, James E. Stovall, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Albert B. Koorie, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before LEMMON, STOULIG and GARSAUD, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for damages for breach of an exclusive agency agreement against defendant, A-1 Industries, Inc. An amended petition was filed after the trial court maintained defendant's exception of vagueness. Subsequently, defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, alleging that the agreement in question was a joint venture agreement between plaintiff and defendant, and accordingly plaintiff's remedy would be first in a suit to dissolve or liquidate the joint venture under partnership law.
After a determination that the agreement was a joint venture, the exception of no cause of action was maintained by the trial judge, thereby dismissing plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff appeals from that dismissal, contending that the agreement was not a joint venture, but rather that the relationship between the parties was that of principal and agent. Defendant has answered the appeal, asking for damages for loss of credit and reputation as well as for prosecution of a frivolous appeal.
The agreement in question is labeled a joint venture by the parties, and its provisions are as follows:
This agreement was entered into for the purpose of bidding on subcontracting work for Litton Industries. It has been alleged that defendant lacked the good will and business contacts to procure subcontracts from Litton on its own reputation. Thus, under this agreement plaintiff provided the good will, etc., for the procurement of the contracts and defendant would perform the work necessary for the completion of the contracts. After a contract had been bid upon and received from Litton by these parties, plaintiff alleges that defendant bid directly with Litton for future work, which was in violation of the terms of the agreement.
The sole issue presented is whether these provisions constitute and establish a joint venture, as defendant maintains, or an agency relationship, as the plaintiff maintains. There is no dispute between the parties here that if this is a joint venture arrangement then partnership law applies, and the exception of no cause of action was properly maintained.
The parties are correct that joint ventures are governed by the law of partnership. The comparison between a joint venture and a partnership was spelled out in McCann v. Ladd, 203 La. 631, 14 So.2d 469 (1943), quoting from Daily States Publishing Co. v. Uhalt, 169 La. 893, 126 So. 231 (1930):
It is clear that so long as a partnership exists, undissolved and unliquidated, there can be no cause of action by one partner against another for matters arising from the partnership. The remedy is in dissolution of the partnership with division of the assets. Fossier v. American Printing Co., Ltd., 130 So.2d 529 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1961), and cases cited therein.
Regarding the basic issue, the written agreement was identified as a joint venture, and it should be noted that the agreement was drawn up by plaintiff, Marine Services, so that the designation and terms are to be construed against plaintiff, rather than against defendant. C.C. Arts. 1957, 1958. Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., 249 La. 85, 185 So.2d 210 (1966). However, it is well-established that the label given to an agreement is of no consequence in and of itself. In order for there to be a valid joint venture, the requisite elements of a joint venture must be present. Hodges v. Decoteau, 314 So.2d 500 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975); Sas Jaworsky v. LeBlanc, 239 So.2d 176 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1970); Darden v. Cox, 240 La. 310, 123 So.2d 68 (1960). This principle was well-stated by the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Fiesta Foods, Inc. v. Ogden, 159 So.2d 577 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1964) "It is settled jurisprudence that even if parties in an enterprise call the relationship a partnership and agree they will give their mutual consent to form it, it will not be considered a partnership in law as between them unless it is evident they share the losses as well as profits and that the property or stock of the undertaking forms a community of goods in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Transit Mgmt SE Louisiana v. Tenet Hlth Sys.
...Coop., Inc. v. McNamara, 452 So.2d 212, 215 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 123 (La. 1984); Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, 355 So.2d 625,627 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978); see also 7 Glenn G. Morris & Wendell H. Holmes, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Business Organizations § 1......
-
West v. Kerr-McGee Corp., Civ. A. No. 82-97.
...Technical Drilling, Inc. v. Smith, 424 So.2d 435, 438 (La.App.1982). Three of these rules can be found in Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, 355 So.2d 625, 628 (La.App.1978): There are three major requirements for the existence of a joint venture or partnership to be found. First, all......
-
Buckbee, Individually and as Adm'x of Succession of and on Behalf of Buckbee v. AWECO, Inc.
...the subject of the parties' relationship. Hauth v. Iacoponelli, 251 La. 410, 204 So.2d 767." Finally, Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, 355 So.2d 625, 627 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978), found the law of partnership to control joint ventures. Further, the court quoted the comparison which h......
-
Taylor v. Getty Oil Co., Civ. A. No. 85-2439.
...business. Josephs v. Austin, 420 So.2d 1181, 1184 (La.App. 5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 427 So.2d 870; Marine Services, Inc. v. A-1 Industries, 355 So.2d 625, 628 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978). With these legal principles in mind, a study of the Operating Agreement among Getty, Elf and InterNorth ......