What will happen in the voting among partners in TRIUMPH Company where no manager is appointed?

In a partnership where no manager is appointed, decision-making typically relies on the voting procedures outlined in the partnership agreement or, in the absence of such provisions, by general partnership law principles. Without a manager to guide or facilitate the decision-making process, partners must come together to vote on matters concerning the partnership.

If the voting does not achieve a clear majority—meaning that no single group of partners has sufficient support to carry the motion—chaos can ensue, as this lack of consensus prevents any proposal from moving forward. The requirement for a majority vote underscores the necessity of having sufficient agreement among partners; without a majority, no decisions can be effectively ratified or executed.

Therefore, if no group achieves a majority, it logically follows that no proposal will prevail in the voting process, leading to a condition where decisions remain unresolved. This reinforces the understanding of collective decision-making in the partnership context and highlights how critical majority support is in facilitating agreement among partners.

Other interpretations may mistakenly suggest that a controlling interest can simply override this, or that decisions could still be made without a manager, but those scenarios presume a level of consensus or structure that does not exist in this scenario. Consequently, the option indicating no group prevailing due to a lack of majority illustrates