Opinion ID: 2581167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meeting the Sharing of Losses Element at Trial

Text: ¶ 17 Whether there is a duty to share losses is  like the other four elements  a question of fact. See Latiolais v. BFI of La., Inc., 567 So.2d 1159, 1162 (La.Ct. App.1990) (The issue as to whether the parties . . . anticipated a sharing of losses is clearly an issue of fact within the province of the jury.). Thus, at trial, the party asserting the existence of a joint venture must present some evidence of loss sharing. The most obvious way to meet this evidentiary burden is to show that the agreement between the parties contains a clear and unambiguous loss-sharing provision. See Ellsworth Paulsen Constr. Co., 2006 UT App 353, ¶ 11, 144 P.3d 261 (It goes without saying that a duty to share losses is present in a relationship where a `written agreement specifically provide[s] for the sharing of losses.' (quoting Harline v. Campbell, 728 P.2d 980, 983 (Utah 1986))). ¶ 18 It is often the case, however, that the agreement between the parties does not include a clear statement on the issue of loss sharing. See Cutler v. Bowen, 543 P.2d 1349, 1351 (Utah 1975) (When parties join in an enterprise, it is usually in contemplation of success and making profits, and is often without much concern about who will bear losses.); Bromberg and Ribstein on Partnership, § 2.07(d)(2) (noting that the question of whether a partnership exists in the absence of an express agreement to share losses is significant because purported partners, expecting profits, often do not provide for losses one way or the other). In this situation, the party asserting the existence of a joint venture must present other evidence to satisfy the loss-sharing element. For example, the asserting party may show that the actions of the parties demonstrate an intent to share losses. See Rogers, 738 P.2d at 1032 (A joint venture does not always arise pursuant to formal agreement; rather, it is a relationship voluntarily entered by the parties and may be proven by the actions taken by the parties.). Alternatively, the asserting party may show that the agreement, although lacking a clear statement regarding loss sharing, shows an intent to share losses. See Bassett, 530 P.2d at 2 (While the agreement to share losses need not necessarily be stated in specific terms, the agreement must be such as to permit the court to infer that the parties intend to share losses as well as profits.); see also Latiolais, 567 So.2d at 1162 ([A]n agreement to share losses may be implied if consistent with the overall terms of the agreement.). The asserting party may also rely on a profit-sharing provision in the agreement as prima facie evidence that the parties agreed to share losses. See Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 P. 736, 741 (1908) ([I]t has been quite generally held that an agreement to share profits, nothing being said about losses, amounts prima facie to an agreement to share losses also.). [3] Once the asserting party has presented some evidence of loss sharing, the finder of fact can then weigh that evidence against the evidence presented by the opposing party to determine if the parties intended to share losses.