Reference no: EM131166131

Two brothers, Charles and William Hooper, entered into an oral partnership agreement for the purpose of carrying on the business of industrial scrap metal sales. Charles expressly offered William an equal partnership in the business, stating that he needed a partner, not an employee, and that he wanted William to be his partner. Charles and William were both injured in a car accident in 1984. William's injuries were very significant, requiring two major surgeries. At that time, Charles took control of the management of the partnership and its assets. Because of his injuries, William could not operate an automobile and was dependent on Charles to provide him with the information necessary for William to continue participating in the management of the partnership business. In early 1985, William tried to return to work, but he could not because of his injuries. Thereafter, William performed limited services for the business from his home. Sometime after that point, the two brothers fought over a partnership matter, and they became so angry that they did not speak and Charles refused to give William any information about the partnership. William filed suit, asking the court to order an accounting and to dissolve the partnership. Charles alleged that he was entitled to monetary compensation (on top of his share of the profits) for the services he performed for the partnership after William was injured because William was no longer doing his share of the work for the partnership. Do you think the court granted him this additional compensation?