English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In his article,' Professor Hynes makes several contributions to the debate over the Revised Uniform Partnership Act ("RUPA").2 One contribution is his acknowledgement that both the contractarian and fiduciary-based positions have merit and respond to socially valuable, although competing, impulses-efficiency and individual justice.3 Both are important considerations, and we should therefore more seriously discuss the costs of both positions. Another contribution by Professor Hynes is his observation that RUPA is internally contradictory and does not consistently adopt either position.4 The literature is now replete with critiques of RUPA from both the right and the left, which amply demonstrate that the uniform act does not meet either side's objectives.5

Advancing the Search for Compromise: A Response to Professor Hynes