The building blocks of a joint venture are: (a) as in the case of partnerships, the joint venture must have a contractual basis; and (b) a contribution of money, property, effort, knowledge or other assets must be made to a joint venture; (ii) a common real estate interest in the purpose of the business, which is usually an individual or ad hoc undertaking; (iii) a right of control or reciprocal management of the business; (iv) the expectation of profit and the right to participate in profits; (Canlan Investment Corp. v. Gettling (1997), 37 B.C.L.R. (3d) 140, 95 B.C.A.C. 16 [Canlan (B.C.C.A)])  The defendant`s first allegation relates to the law of fraud. The defendants owned the property in 1231 Horn Avenue prior to the creation of the alleged joint venture. They argue that (assuming an oral agreement of a joint venture), an oral agreement on a joint venture involving real estate constitutes a violation of the statutes of [219 Cal]. With regard to the joint venture, the Committee on Economic Affairs and Competition Policy found that there was no other reason for not being in possession of one of the parties to the joint venture.  As the parties were unable to agree on essential conditions, their agreement boiled down to an unenforceable agreement. Tysoe J. referred to may v.
Butcher v. The King, (1929),  2 K.B. 17 (H.L.) on page 21: to be a good contract, there must be an agreement reached, and a contract concluded is a contract that settles everything that must be settled and leaves nothing settled by agreement between the parties. “The Horn Avenue agreement of the joint venture between the parties is not consistent with the provisions of the status of fraud.” It is true that after the manufacture of Bronson Avenue oral joint venture, the defendants … were guilty of conduct that takes into account the exercise of the joint venture`s activity, in this: [2a] The defendant then asserts that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the joint venture. Finding the facts [219 Cal. Ca. 2d 800] XII footnote 2, in particular), that the complainant and the defendant entered into an oral joint venture agreement to combine 1230 and 1231 Horn Avenue real estate. The reason for this assertion is that there are no essential concepts for the creation of a joint venture – that there have been only preliminary negotiations. The defendants attach great importance to the cases of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Ltd. v.
Roeder, 209 Cal. About 2d 401 [25 Cal. Rptr. 917] and Pacific Hills Corp. v. Duggan, 199 Cal. About 2d 806 [19 Cal. Rptr. 291]. “It is also disposed, adjudged And Decree, that there is a joint venture between the parties, these two specific parcels of improved real estate commonly known as 1230 Horn Avenue and 1231 Horn Avenue, both in the city and county of Los Angeles, California; that the specific package, known as 1230 Horn Avenue, is owned by the parties for the benefit of their joint venture; that the package known as 1231 Horn Avenue is held by the defendants for the benefit of that joint venture; that each of the parties has an equal interest in the aforementioned combined real estate and that each of the parties participates equally in the profits and losses of the aforementioned joint venture; that the aforementioned joint venture is a joint venture, dissolves and dissolves without delay; …” (added to the article) “It is true that it is now reasonable for these parties to maintain the Bronson Avenue agreement on a joint venture, and it is true that this joint venture should be dissolved and dissolved.
 Partnership is defined at p. 2 of the Partnership Act as “the relationship between individuals acting together for the purpose of profit.” While the statutes do not mention the contract, the existence of a contractual partnership basis is essential: the partnership, although often called a contract, is more precisely called contractual relationship.