Petitioner, in turn, cites cases showing that notes, maturity date and certainty of payment are not necessarily determinative. 3 Finally in 1951 the contract between petitioner and IMI was terminated and IMI was liquidated, its assets sold and the proceeds applied against petitioner's account, reducing the balance to the $506,887.13 here involved. Nevertheless, the balance against IMI continued to increase. Substantial advances were made during these years by petitioner and certain repayments largely from the assignments of meter purchase contracts were received.
IMI had virtually no money during its corporate existence so that all financing had to come from petitioner during the five years of their joint enterprise. For various reasons the operation did not proceed as rapidly or as successfully as contemplated. The general plan was to have petitioner manufacture the meters and IMI to act as the selling agent. IMI had been in existence for some six years primarily to exploit a parking meter which by means of two meters on one head could control two parking spaces. The venture giving rise to this controversy (except for some preliminaries in 1946) commenced in 1947 when petitioner purchased for $50,000 fifty-one percent (51%) of IMI's common stock, 400 shares of preferred stock and a $9,000 note.
0 kommentar(er)
