This case is between a rich single businesswoman, Miss Lee and her boyfriend an unemployed race car driver, Mr. Loh. Miss Lee supported Mr. Loh financially since he was not gainfully employed; especially when she decided to make him a partner in her Boomz Boomz business which dealt with the selling of car parts and accessories in 2006. From the partnership, Mr. Loh helped the business because of his technical expertise with cars. Miss Lee had other businesses apart from Boomz Boomz which included a food mall, a beauty salon and a chain of successful tuition agencies. In all these businesses, Mr. Loh offered to help with strategic business advice. As a result of this Mr. Loh was made a stakeholder and director of all Miss Lee’s companies, and was advanced a 30% shareholding of the businesses (Ferran, 1999). Unfortunately, in January 2009; Miss Lee noted that Mr. Loh was having an affair with a secretary working in the Boomz Boomz Company, making her decision to end their relationship placing their business partnership in jeopardy. By March 2009, Mr. Loh frequently missed going to work; as he was taking vacation trips with his newfound girlfriend to neighboring countries resulting in his being fired from the Company (Chartrand, Miller & Wiltshire, 2003. After this, Mr. Loh went to court claiming that he was entitled to 30% of all the businesses that he and Miss Lee owned. He argued that the businesses were being operated jointly instead of being separately owned. Based on this, he argued that he had a share within all the businesses and that his tenure had been wrongly terminated amounting to his oppression being the minor shareholder. To support his contention, he argued that Miss Lee had terminated his tenure based on her jealousy about his new relationship and not a poor performance in the business. Based on this argument, he wanted the court to order Miss Lee to buy off his shares in the companies at a fair value (Ferran, 1999). On the other hand, Miss Lee claimed that the companies were distinct and separate entities and not subsidiaries of the main company. She said that she paid for Mr. Loh’s personal expenses and expensive lifestyle in all those years they were together; and that he was a special director without a portfolio, more of a personal assistant to her. She contended that Mr. Loh was not a true business partner but played more of the role of a live-in boyfriend. Miss Lee argued that Mr. Loh’s services and technical expertise to her businesses were offered for free, as a repayment for her financial help and support. She further argued that his dismissal from the company was based on his frequent absences from work and poor performance; which resulted in her businesses incurring losses from his incompetent advice (Plimpton, 2007). The advice I can give to Mr. Loh is that, since their contract was oral and no written document could be produced as evidence, it is impossible for him to claim anything from Miss Lee as the partnership was based on their relationship. However, some oral contracts are enforceable despite others not being enforceable as they are hard to prove in court. There was no written document or present witness to show that they agreed that Mr. Loh will have a stake of 30% in Miss Lee’s businesses; therefore, no proof can be provided to support what Mr. Loh was claiming to be his. As a res