This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D and P formed a partnership in 1965 for the purpose of operating a laundromat. The partnership rented space for the business, on a month-to-month basis, from D, in a building that housed D's car dealership. In 1973, D filed an action seeking to have the partnership dissolved. A receiver was appointed and operated the laundry for several months. On court order, and after advertisement, the assets of the partnership, which consisted of the equipment of the laundry, were sold at public sale. At the time of the sale, D indicated that he would not lease the building to anyone who might want to continue to operate the laundry there, and thus the purchaser of the equipment would have to remove it from the premises. The equipment was purchased by Louis Platkin for $800.00. Platkin was an agent of D. D and his son have continued to operate the laundromat at the same location. P claimed that D purchased the equipment clandestinely, at a value artificially depressed by his refusal to permit others to lease the premises, and that in doing so he had gained an unfair advantage in a transaction with the partnership, breaching his fiduciary duty to P. The judge denied P’s claim. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.