The judge ruled out that the partnership had ended by 31st December 1993 for a number of reasons. First, the general rule stipulated that litigation was closely connected to identity of parties and as to subject matter. The litigation also needed to be brought before the same trial judge for it to be dealt with in a convenient manner; the judge will deal with the sequential events surrounding the case. This will avoid unnecessary duplication and conflicting findings of different judges. In this case, this was not taken into account, and there were conflicting sentiments.
The Lovrinovs also left the legal and business issues to their son who was not part of the agreement, and this sparked the end of the partnership between the two parties. Lukin did not intervene, and this deteriorated things. This is because Lovrinov’s son also got in to the business, and he sought to act on things that would satisfy his needs; he was not part of the agreement, yet he was made responsible of running crucial affairs of the business. Therefore, the judge used this to rule that the agreement had ended by #1st December 1993.
The plaintiff was also aware of the necessity of applying for the quota of the partnership, but he applied just for his individual boats. In doing this, he ignored the joint venture and seemed to be working for his own benefits; not for the benefits of the partnership. Therefore, this led to the termination of the partnership by December 31st 1993. The demands of the Commonwealth also affected the joint venture, and led to the dissolution. Additionally, both partners, by this time seemed to be working independently.
The Commonwealth Government granted the rights to a tuna quota in 1984, and this affected the partnership adversely. This is because the Common wealth rights went contrary to the initial agreement between the parties. The fishing licenses were given to individual fishermen and vessels, and the terms of any partnerships were not considered. Additionally, the commonwealth governments covered a wide variety of countries; this gave these rights a global texture to the fishing community. The judge put the liability of the partners into consideration in determining the judgments. Apparently, the rights of the tuna quota were the property of a very large number of people, and it could not be applied to the partnership between the Lovrinovs and Lukin.