Ellen Doran Case
Essay Preview: Ellen Doran Case
Report this essay
BUSINESS CASE
Presented to the
Accountancy Department
De La Salle University
In partial fulfilment
Of the course requirements
In ACTPACO C31
Olalo, Louis Alfonso N.
February 24, 2014
PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS CASE
Ellen Doran is an accounting analyst. She made a name for herself in the Florida
panhandle with several small businesses. Growing tired of working seven days a week,
Ellen formed a partnership with a local software saleswoman, Penelope Bitz. They
agreed via e-mail as to how expenses and such would be handled-each department
would be its own profit center and each partner should be responsible for her individual
departments. Although they agreed to this via e-mail, the partners failed to draft a
formal partnership written agreement. While Ellen Doran went about working with
clients and reimbursing her expenses, Penelope Bitz grew resentful of Ellens growing
profits. Seven weeks into the partnership, Ellen realized that Penelope had cleaned out
the partnership bank account and closed it. Three years of litigation ensued over
P200,000 profits and hundred of thousands of pesos were spent in legal and accounting
fees, not to mention the time each former partner spent on the case. The judge ruled
that in absence of written partnership agreement, Ellen had mutual agency liability for
the actions of Penelope. Ellen filed bankruptcy while Penelope lost most of her clients
in the aftermath.
Did either of the partners commit a fraud?
For Penelope Bitz, she committed fraud when she emptied the partnership bank account and closed it without the knowledge of her partner Ellen Doran. This was all because of her jealousy of the profits Ellen was making from the partnership. Penelope deliberately did this to undermine the partnership in order to spite Ellen. Being a partnership bank account, it contained the cash both partners contributed to help in the running of the partnership business or part of their combined capital for short. So naturally, before Penelope was to make any withdrawal/s from that bank account, she should have at least informed her fellow partner, Ellen, and waited for her to give her consent. But in this case, she didnt and it even got to the point of Ellen finding out herself which only made the situation worse than what it already was. In addition to that, Penelope took the money for her own petty and selfish reason to spite her partner as opposed to using the money for the partnerships business operations. This itself can be considered as fraud. Also, because she deliberately emptied and closed the partnership bank account without Ellens knowledge, Penelope acted in bad faith which constitutes fraud.
On Ellens part, she may have committed fraud before Penelope emptied and closed the partnership