Opinion ID: 1252045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Joint Venture

Text: The first substantive argument made by Fomby on appeal is that there are material issues of fact with regard to whether Fomby and Riley had embarked on a joint venture. We agree. We have previously cited approvingly Professor Williston's list of the requirements of a joint venture: (a) A contribution by the parties of money, property, effort, knowledge, skill, or other asset to a common undertaking; (b) A joint property interest in the subject matter of the venture; (c) A right of mutual control or management of the enterprise; (d) Expectation of profit, or the presence of `adventure,' as it is sometimes called; (e) A right to participate in the profits; (f) Most usually, limitation of the objective to a single undertaking or ad hoc enterprise. (footnotes omitted). Nicholas v. Moore, 570 P.2d 174, 178 (Alaska 1977), quoting 2 Williston on Contracts § 318A, at 563-64 (3d ed. W. Jaeger 1959). [6] In our view, there are material factual issues remaining to be resolved in determining whether this test has been satisfied. While the arrangement between Fomby and Riley may simply have been that the former would lease the latter's equipment and personnel, the record is not conclusive. Fomby's affidavit says that Riley at all times had a say-so in the operation of the project. Viewed favorably to Fomby, this could mean that Riley had a right of mutual control or management of the enterprise, notwithstanding Whisenhunt's assertion that it means only that Riley retained a right, like any other subcontractor or lessor, to pull out of a job if he suspected he was not going to be paid. Fomby's affidavit does not specifically describe the financial arrangements between himself and Riley, but it does state that [f]rom the proceeds of the [project], John Riley and I would have divided our proportionate shares. Viewed favorably to Fomby, this indicates [a] right to participate in the profits, as opposed to a rental of equipment and personnel on an hourly basis, despite Fomby's statement, elsewhere in the same affidavit, that [h]e [Riley] was expecting a profit from the overall operation through the leasing of his manned trucks and equipment. Riley's affidavit specifically states that Dale confirmed with me that we would go together in handling the project utilizing the Shamrock name... . Such an agreement would presumably give rise to a joint property interest in the subject matter of the venture... . Since the evidence is not conclusive on the question whether Fomby and Riley were in fact engaged in a joint venture, summary judgment against Fomby on this question would be improper.