The Bakery That Outgrew Its Partnership
Three former colleagues run 'Crumb & Co', a wholesale bakery operating as a general partnership with no written agreement. Each contributed roughly equal capital. Two years in, annual revenue is $1.4 million and profit is $180,000, split equally. Priya handles sales and has landed a national supermarket contract that would triple volume but require $600,000 in new equipment and a 12-month supply guarantee. Marcus manages production and wants to proceed. Elena, who handles finance, is alarmed: cash reserves are $90,000, the supermarket demands 90-day payment terms, and a single failed delivery could trigger penalty clauses. Elena also discovers Marcus has been signing supply contracts up to $200,000 without consulting the others. The trio meet to decide whether to accept the contract and whether to restructure.
1. Evaluate the legal and financial risks of remaining a general partnership while pursuing the supermarket contract. Recommend a structure and justify it.
Read the worked answer
Legal risk: In a general partnership, all partners have unlimited joint and several liability. If the supermarket contract fails and penalty clauses bite, creditors can pursue any partner's personal assets, not just business assets. Because there is no written agreement, decision-making authority is ambiguous - Marcus signing $200,000 contracts unilaterally is legally binding on the whole partnership, exposing Priya and Elena to obligations they never approved.
Financial risk: The $600,000 equipment cost is over three times annual profit and far exceeds the $90,000 cash reserve. With 90-day receivables from the supermarket, working capital will be stretched: the business must fund wages, ingredients and loan repayments before any supermarket cash arrives. A single delivery failure triggers penalties while fixed costs (equipment finance) remain.
Recommendation: Convert to a proprietary limited company (Pty Ltd) before signing. Incorporation creates a separate legal entity, limiting shareholder liability to unpaid share capital, and a constitution/shareholders' agreement can define spending thresholds (e.g. contracts above $50,000 need board approval), removing the Marcus problem. The company can also raise equity from the three owners or a fourth investor to reduce debt. However, directors still owe duties and may need personal guarantees for equipment finance, so liability is not eliminated - it is contained. Accepting the contract should be conditional on secured finance and a documented supply-capacity plan.
2. Elena proposes declining the supermarket deal and instead growing slowly through existing customers. Assess this option against Marcus and Priya's growth ambition.
Read the worked answer
Case for Elena's option: The current model generates $180,000 profit on $1.4m revenue (about 13% margin) with manageable risk. Organic growth through existing wholesale customers avoids the $600,000 capital outlay, the penalty exposure and the working-capital squeeze of 90-day terms. The business retains flexibility and the partners' personal assets stay protected only if they also incorporate. Given cash reserves of $90,000, slow growth is financially prudent.
Case against: The supermarket contract offers a step-change - roughly tripling volume - that organic growth may never deliver. Declining could cede the opportunity to a competitor who gains the scale and cost efficiencies of national supply. Slow growth also risks partner conflict: two of three partners want to proceed, and without a written agreement the dissent could fracture the partnership.
Judgement: The decision hinges on capacity and financing, not ambition. A staged approach - a pilot supply arrangement or a smaller initial order - would test delivery reliability before committing to the full guarantee. The partners should quantify break-even volume, stress-test a 10% sales shortfall, and only proceed if finance is secured without personal guarantees. This reconciles Elena's risk concern with Priya and Marcus's growth goal rather than treating them as opposites.