{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018105849582172703, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.89344262295082, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Service Partner Capital Agreements: The Leading Cases and a Response to Critics

This paper clarifies the partnership accounting and legal results that should occur when a partnership involving a service partner closes at a loss. The paper concludes that the Uniform Partnership Act's default rule is not the rule the parties would have chosen. The deal the parties actually made is almost always counter to the result imposed by the code. Inasmuch as the code's rule surprises the parties, and in particular the service partner, after the partnership formation deal has already been struck, the rule is unfair. Inasmuch as the code's rule departs from the deal actually struck by the parties, the rule is inefficient.