Which statement is true regarding John Solanda's liability in the partnership?

In partnership law, liability for debts incurred by a partnership typically extends to partners who are actively involved in the business as well as those whose names are associated with the partnership. In this case, if John Solanda's name is used in connection with the partnership, he could be held liable for the partnership's debts. This principle is grounded in the idea that a partner's name can imply to third parties that they are involved in the business and responsible for its obligations.

A partner whose name is used and who does not actively dissociate from the partnership may still need to uphold the obligations of the partnership. Therefore, even if Solanda is not actively running the business, the fact that he bears liability because of his name being attached to the partnership signifies an important legal understanding of partner responsibilities.

Other options address different aspects of partnership liability. Option stating he is not liable overlooks the implications of name usage, while asserting that he is personally liable for all debts does not consider potential nuances like the type of partnership or his status within it. The statement about liabilities only applying to active partners fails to recognize that retired members or those whose names are on the business can still face liability. Thus, the reasoning behind the true statement is firmly grounded in how partnerships operate and the