PEH387

PEH387

Two merchants, A and B, formed a partnership. Even a windfall on the street was to be shared. A, being single, moved into B's house. They shared household expenses equally, even though B had a wife and children. Suddenly, A and B fell out. The cause was that A did not want to marry B's niece, who was very wealthy, but instead became engaged to a poor girl. B offered A the dissolution of the partnership, especially since disputes had also arisen over the interpretation of the partnership agreement. They argued over whether a dowry also fell under the provisions of the partnership agreement. B also stated that he would not allow A to use the business funds to cover the expenses of his wedding and setting up his household. He maintained this stance despite A pointing out that he, A, had been generous in settling the joint household expenses and had paid half of the household costs. He even allowed the costs of B's wife's childbirth to be covered from the joint funds. A then left B's house without definitively responding to B's proposal to dissolve the agreement. The next day, A wanted to dissolve the agreement. Meanwhile, a large inheritance from an uncle overseas had fallen to his bride. B had also heard about the inheritance and no longer wished to uphold his offer. Isaac Sarucco decides that if the contract was not for a specific period, both parties had the right to terminate it at any time. He further explains that neither the dowry nor the inheritance fell under the partnership.

4

34

1759-06-09

1759-09-22

SaruccoII

Sarucco, Isaac ben Shlomo

Abendana

Abendana de Britto, Isaac Chaim