Answer :
Final answer:
National Biscuit Co. v. Stroud and Summers v. Dooley both revolve around understanding partnership agreements, specifically focusing on partner authority and its bounds. These cases emphasize how partners can bind the partnership through their actions, addressing both contractual agreements and tort liability within the scope of the partnership's business.
Explanation:
The discussion concerns two cases, National Biscuit Co. v. Stroud (1959) and Summers v. Dooley (Idaho 1971), which at first glance may appear to tackle varying legal principles. However, upon closer inspection, both cases involve the broader understanding of partnership agreements and their implications on partner authority and liability. In National Biscuit Co. v. Stroud, the focal issue is whether a partner can unilaterally end a purchasing agreement that another partner has agreed to without terminating the partnership. Summers v. Dooley considers whether a partner can bind the partnership to a tort liability through their actions, addressing liability in partnerships more generally. Although the cases address different aspects of partnership law - one concerning contractual agreements and the other regarding tort liability - both underscore the underlying principle that partners have the authority to bind the partnership within the scope of the partnership's business. Therefore, reconciliation comes from understanding that the core of both disputes lies in the extent of a partner's authority to bind the partnership and the implications thereof.
