Opinion ID: 2318576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Joint Venture Instruction

Text: We turn first to the proposed joint venture instruction. WIP requested an instruction that: Under District of Columbia law, ... [j]oint control over decision-making is not required for the creation of a joint venture. The trial court rejected that instruction and delivered the following instructions, in relevant part: You may find ... a joint venture ... only if you find all of the following statements to be true: ... (4) that under that agreement each member had the equal right to direct and control the management of the enterprise.... The joint venture or joint enterprise relationship does not arise accidentally. The members must have the intent to form the relationship. On appeal, WIP takes issue with the trial court's requirement that the jury find the parties had equal right to ... control the enterprise. We are not convinced that the court's instruction was erroneous, but even if it were, we would find that any such error was harmless. Relying on Fraser v. Gottfried, 636 A.2d 430, 432 n. 6 (D.C.1994), WIP asserts that it was reversible error for the court to require the jury to find equal control in order to find a joint venture because, WIP argues, equal control is not necessary. This argument misreads the import of the words in the trial court's instruction. We have consistently mentioned equal right to control in our joint venture cases: even in Fraser, supra , we described joint control of decisionmaking as a customary attribute and a necessary guidepost of the joint venture inquiry, id. at 432, [10] and in Beckman v. Farmer, we noted that a right of joint control is ordinarily key to finding a joint venture. 579 A.2d 618, 627 (D.C.1990). Although in Beckman, supra, we noted that one joint venturer may cede actual control of the business to his associate, this is not to be taken out of context to mean that equal right to control is not required by our law. We clarified in Beckman, supra, that when the power to manage and control is ceded, the question then becomes whether or not the participant had the right to exercise control: [and thus the right to cede such control] in the management of the business. Id. at 628 (emphasis added). This right flows from each joint venturer's original co-ownership of the enterprise. See id. at 628 n. 8 (citing D.C.Code § 41.151.1(7) (defining partners as co-owners [of] a business)); UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT 1914 § 6 (Ownership involves the power of ultimate control. To state that partners are co-owners of a business is to state that they each have the power of ultimate control.). [11] Thus, although we have held that equal actual control is not necessary, we have consistently stated that equal right to control is necessary and key. [12] Therefore, because the instruction discussed equal right to direct and control, we can conclude that it fairly and accurately state[d] the applicable law and thus was not erroneous. Psychiatric Inst., supra, 509 A.2d at 625. The jury simply decided against WIP on this particular issue. Moreover, even assuming that the court erred in denying WIP's instructionwhich we in no sense suggest that it didwe would still affirm because we conclude that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the alleged error. See Dennis, supra, 928 A.2d at 676 (internal citations omitted). The court instructed the jury that [t]he members must have the intent to form the relationship. The intent element of joint venture is well-established. [13] Taking the parties' unambiguous agreement as the best objective manifestation of the parties' intent, as we must, see Debnam v. Crane Co., 976 A.2d 193, 197 (D.C.2009), it is apparent that no joint venture was intended here. The AMA states clearly, this Agreement is not intended to create, and does not constitute or result in, a partnership or joint venture of any kind.... [14] In the face of this language, WIP could not prove a shared intent to form a joint ventureat best, the record reflects WIP's unrequited desire to do so. Therefore, even assuming error as to the issue of control, we can be at least fair[ly] assur[ed] that the result would be the same and therefore affirm. See Dennis, supra, 928 A.2d at 676. [15]