(a) Who should answer for the damages caused by the loss of the mini vans?

It Depends. If David acted within his authority, the partnership is liable to the loss of the mini
vans. According to Art. 1824, All partners are liable solidarily with the partnership for everything
chargeable to the partnership under articles 1822 and 1823.
Under Art. 1818 of the civil code, when a partner performs an act within the scope of his
actual, implied, or apparent authority, he is not only a principal as to himself, but is also for all
purposes, an agent as to his co-partners or to the partnership, considered as a group. Thus, his
act concerning partnership business and every contract signed in the partnership name bind
the firm. The general rules of law applicable to agents likewise apply to partners. Each partner
is a fiduciary of the other partners.
As a matter of fact, the law of partnership is a branch of the law of agency. Accordingly, the
liability of one partner for the acts of his co-partners is founded on the principle of mutual
agency.
However, under the same provision, a particular partner who undertakes to bind his co-
partners by a contract without authority is himself personally liable on such contract.

(b) Who should answer for the outstanding and unpaid telephone and internet bills.
The partnership is liable for the telephone and internet bills. It has been truthfully said that a
partnership is a contract of “mutual agency,” each partner acting as a principal on his own
behalf, and as an agent for his co-partners or the firm.
A partner like Roger can bind the partnership when the following requisites are present:
1. when he is expressly authorized or impliedly authorized;
2. when the act is for “apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the
partnership.” (This is binding on the firm even if the partner was not really authorized,
provided that the third party is in GOOD FAITH.)
In the present case, as to the first requisite, Roger was expressly authorized to contract with
regard to the telephone and internet transaction since he was appointed as the Office Manager
of the partnership. And as to the last requisite, he’s act of incurring telephone and internet
transaction is within the usual way or in line with the normal business of the firm. Usual way
may be interpreted as meaning usual for the particular partnership or usual for similar
partnerships. Thus, considering all the requisites are present, the liability is chargeable to the
partnership.