Martin, mark, and marvin formed a retail clothing partnership named m clothiers and conducted a business for many years, buying most of their clothing from hill, a wholesaler. on january 15, marvin retired from the business, but martin and mark decided to continue it. as part of the retirement agreement, martin and mark agreed in writing with marvin that marvin would not be responsible for any of the partnership debts, either past or future. on january 15 the partnership published a notice of marvin's retirement in a newspaper of general circulation where the partnership carried on its business.
before january 15, hill was a creditor of m clothiers to the extent of $10,000, and on january 30, he extended additional credit of $5,000. hill was not advised and did not in fact know of marvin's retirement and the change of the partnership. on january 30, ray, a competitor of hill, extended credit for the first time to m clothiers in the amount of $3,000. ray also was not advised and did not in fact know of marvin's retirement and the change of the partnership.
on february 1, martin and mark departed for parts unknown, leaving no partnership assets with which to pay the described debts. what is marvin's liability, if any,
(a) to hill and
(b) to ray?
under the upa, marvin had a rightful disassociation and did his part by letting everyone know. rupa rules are different. a) according to the rupa, marvin should have gotten this information posted a notice of disassociation in the county. his personal assets are at stake for 2 years. b) he is responsible for ray "a partner's dissociation does not of itself discharge the partner's liability for a partnership obligation incurred within two years after a partner dissociates unless notice of the dissolution is given to the third party."