| RUPA also deletes UPA Section 32(1)(f) which authorizes a |
| court to order dissolution of a partnership when "other |
| circumstances render a dissolution equitable." That provision |
| was regarded as too open-ended and, given RUPA's expanded |
| remedies for partners, unnecessary. No significant change in |
| result is intended, however, since the interpretation of UPA |
| Section 32(1)(f) is comparable to the specific grounds expressed |
| in subsection (5). See, e.g., Karber v. Karber, 145 Ariz. 293, |
| 701 P.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1985) (partnership dissolved on basis of |
| suspicion and ill will, citing UPA §§ 32(1)(d) and (f)); Fuller |
| v. Brough, 159 Colo. 147, 411 P.2d 18 (1966) (not equitable to |
| dissolve partnership for trifling causes or temporary grievances |
| that do not render it impracticable to carry on partnership |
| business); Lau v. Wong, 1 Haw. App. 217, 616 P.2d 1031 (1980) |
| (partnership dissolved where business operated solely for benefit |
| of managing partner). |