习题：
1、2005年1月，甲、乙、丙共同设立了一家合伙企业，合伙合同约定：甲以人民币30万元、乙以房屋作价人民币40万元、丙以劳务作价人民币20万元出资；各合伙人平均分配利润、平均承担亏损。
企业成立后，为扩大经营，同年6月向银行贷款人民币30万元，期限为1年。
同年8月甲提出退伙，鉴于当时企业赢利，乙、丙表示同意。
甲遂于当月办理了退伙手续。
同年9月，丁入伙。
但后因企业经营恶化，出现严重亏损，2006年5月，乙、丙、丁决定解散合伙企业，并将合伙企业财产予以分配，但未对银行贷款进行清偿。
2006年6月，银行贷款到期后，银行要求合伙企业清偿，发现该合伙企业已解散，遂向甲要求偿还全部贷款。
甲称自己已经退伙，不应负责清偿。
银行即要求乙偿还全部贷款，乙表示只按照合伙合同约定的比例清偿相应数额。
银行又要求丙偿还全部贷款，丙表示自己以劳务出资，不应负责偿还。
银行再向丁要求偿还全部贷款，丁表示该贷款是自己入伙前发生的，不负责清偿。
法律问题：
（1）甲、乙、丙、丁各自的主张能否成立？
甲称自己已经退伙，不应负责清偿。
甲的主张不能成立。
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，退伙人对其退伙前已发生的债务与其他合伙人承担连带责任，故甲对其退伙前发生的银行贷款应负连带清偿责任。
乙表示只按照合伙合同约定的比例清偿相应数额。
乙的主张不能成立。
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，合伙人之间对债务承担份额的约定对债权人没有约束力，故乙提出应按约定比例清偿债务的主张不能成立，其应对银行贷款承担连带清偿责任。
丙表示自己以劳务出资，不应负责偿还。
丙的主张不能成立。
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，以劳务出资成为合伙人，也应承担合伙人的法律责任，故丙也应对银行贷款承担连带清偿责任。
丁表示该贷款是自己入伙前发生的，不负责清偿。
丁的主张不能成立。
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，入伙的新合伙人对入伙前的债务承担连带清偿责任，故丁对其入伙前发生的银行贷款应负连带清偿责任。
（2）合伙企业所欠银行贷款应如何清偿？
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，合伙企业所欠银行贷款首先应用合伙企业的财产清偿，合伙企业财产不足清偿时，由各合伙人承担无限连带责任。
乙、丙、丁在合伙企业解散时，未清偿债务便分配财产，是违法无效的，应全部退还已分得的财产；退还的财产应首先用于清偿银行贷款，不足清偿的部分，由甲、乙、丙、丁承担无限连带清偿责任。
根据《合伙企业法》的规定，合伙企业各合伙人在其内部是依合伙协议约定承担按份责任的。
据此，甲因已办理退伙结算手续，结清了对合伙企业的财产债务关系，故不再承担内部清偿份额；如在银行的要求下承担了对外部债务的连带清偿责任，则可向乙、丙、丁追偿。
乙、丙、丁应按合伙协议的约定分担清偿责任；如乙、丙、丁任何一人实际支付的清偿
数额超过其应承担的份额时，有权就其超过的部分，向其他本支付或本足额支付应承担份额的合伙人追偿。
2、Plummer and Thomas entered into an arrangement which Plummer claimed amounted to a partnership. The joint enterprise involved opening up a work-shop for the manufacture and sale of ceramics and other craft items. Plummer was a ceramicist. Thomas was a farmer who wanted to set up a business which would involve his four adult children.
According to the arrangement, profit were to be shared 50/50. Otherwise Thomas arranged the lease in his name and paid the bond, registered the business name in his name, opened the bank accounts in his own name, paid all the debts, decided who would be hired and fired , and decided who the accountant would be and what form the financial records would take. Plummer brought a number of specialty items to the workshop. However, when the relationship broke down she claimed these back and Thomas agreed.
Plummer argued that there was a partnership. Thomas denied this.
合伙企业指依法设立的，由各合伙人订立合伙协议，共同出资经营、共享利润及共担风险，并对合伙企业债务承担无限连带责任的营利性组织。
由于Thomas开的公司，经营并承担风险，而Plummer只是提供作品及享受分成，所以Thomas的公司并不够成Thomas和Plummer的合伙企业。
3、The partnership was described as a firm of importers. Goods were purchased in Paris by one partner , transported to Australia and sold in Melbourne by another partner. Contrary to agreement, the Melbourne partner bought stock in Melbourne but was unable to pay for it . The Parisian partner visited Melbourne for the purpose of winding up the partnership. He examined all the transactions, took possession of the stock bought by the Melbourne partner and arranged for its sale. He paid some of the debts incurred by the Melbourne partner. Others, however, he refused to pay , arguing that he had no ability to do so . The unpaid creditors argued that he was liable.
Melbourne方违约，在Melbourne购买货物但无钱付款，Parisian决定结束合伙生意。
Parisian方本不应插手存货的问题，因为事前Melbourne方购买时并未与其商量，所以不算是企业的行为。
但Parisian方既然拿走了存货并安排出售，他就应该负责这些货物所产生的一切债务。
4、Holland, Whittington and Harold Holland conducted a solicit or’s office as partners. Harold advised a client of the partnership (Polkinghorne) to sell government bonds and invest in a company run by an acquaintance of Harold’s. The company had no assets and the whole scheme was designed to defraud the client. The other two partners were not aware of Harold’s acti vities. Polkinghorne sued the partners.
The partners argued that they were not responsible for the actions of Harold because his activities were not within the scope of the kind of business carried on by the partnership. The argument was based on the fact that Harold gave investment advice rather than legal advice.
Harold对Polkinghorne提出的建议完全是出于他本身的利益，而另两位合伙人并不知情，所以并不属于合伙公司的行为，另两位合伙人不承担责任。
他们是法律公司，提供投资建议不在他们的经营范围里，所以不属于公司的责任。