Past Year Papers:The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 | Business Laws for CA Foundation PDF Download

Q 1. In accordance with provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, explain the following: 
(i) The rights of an outgoing partner to carry on competing business.
(ii) The rights of a partner to be indemnified by the firm and the liability of a partner to indemnify the firm.
(6 Marks, May 2025)

Answer: (i) Rights of outgoing partner to carry on competing Business   (Section 36 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932) 
An outgoing partner may carry on business competing with that of the firm and he may advertise such business, but subject to contract to the contrary, he may not,- 
(a) use the firm name,   
(b) represent himself as carrying on the business of the firm or   
(c) solicit the custom of persons who were dealing with the firm before he ceased to be a partner. 

Agreement in restraint of trade- A partner may make an agreement with his partners that on ceasing to be a partner he will not carry on any business similar to that of the firm within a specified period or within specified local limits and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such agreement shall be valid if the restrictions imposed are reasonable.

(ii) Right of the partners to be indemnified by the firm [Section 13(e)]: Every partner has the right to be indemnified by the firm in respect of payments made and liabilities incurred by him in the ordinary and proper conduct of the business of the firm as well as in the performance of an act in an emergency for protecting the firm from any loss, if the payments, liability and act are such as a prudent man would make, incur or perform in his own case, under similar circumstances. 
Liability of partner to indemnify the firm [Section 13(f)]: A partner must indemnify the firm for any loss caused to it by wilful neglect in the conduct of the business of the firm.

Q 2. ABC & Co is a renowned partnership firm doing business in textile industry from last twenty years. But due to technical up-gradation, firm incurred heavy debts of ₹ 50 lakhs. To maintain the integrity of the firm they introduced Mr. D, as a new partner. Before admission of D, other partners A, B, and C decided on their own and made an agreement with the creditors that the new partner will be liable for existing debt through novation. When D joins, he came to know about the debt of ₹ 50 lakhs. With reference to the provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, give your opinion:
(i) Whether D would be liable for the debts of the firm incurred prior to his admission by virtue of the agreement between A, B, C, and the creditors?
(ii) Whether your answer will be different if D was minor at the time of admission?
(iii) Whether D would be liable to pay the debt upon becoming major?
(7 Marks, May 2025)

Answer: (i) Liability of D: As per section 31 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the liabilities of the new partner ordinarily commence from the date when he is admitted as a partner, unless he agrees to be liable for obligations incurred by the firm prior to the date. The new firm, including the new partner who joins it, may agree to assume liability for the existing debts of the old firm, and creditors may agree to accept the new firm as their debtor and discharge the old partners. The creditor’s consent is necessary in every case to make the transaction operative. The mere agreement amongst partners cannot operate as Novation. Thus, an agreement between the partners and the incoming partner that he shall be liable for existing debts will not ipso facto give creditors of the firm any right against him.   In the instant case, D would not be liable for the debts of the firm incurred prior to his admission by virtue of the agreement between A, B, C and the creditors.

(ii) If D was a minor at the time of admission: As per section 30, the liability of the minor is confined only to the extent of his share in the profits and the property of the firm.   Minor has no personal liability for the debts of the firm incurred during his minority. 
Moreover, a mere agreement amongst partners cannot operate as Novation. Thus, an agreement between the partners and the incoming partner that he shall be liable for existing debts will not ipso facto give creditors of the firm any right against him.  

Q 3. "The partner indeed virtually embraces the character of both a principal and an agent. The implied authority of a partner to bind the firm by all acts done by him in all matters connected with business is done in the usual way, not beyond the nature and scope of Partnership." Explain with reference to provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(7 Marks, May 2025)

Answer: The partner indeed virtually embraces the character of both a principal and an agent. 
As per Section 18 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm. So as far as he acts for himself and in his own interest in the common concern of the partnership, he may properly be deemed a principal and so far as he acts for his partners, he may properly be deemed as an agent. 
The principal distinction between him and a mere agent is that he has a community of interest with other partners in the whole property and business and liabilities of partnership, whereas an agent as such has no interest in either. 
The implied authority of a partner to bind the firm by all acts done by him in all matters connected with business is done in the usual way, not beyond the nature and scope of the partnership. 

Sections 19(1) and 22 deal with the implied authority of a partner. The impact of these Sections is that the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm binds the firm, provided that the act is done in the firm name, or any manner expressing or implying an intention to bind the firm. Such an authority of a partner to bind the firm is called his implied authority. It is however subject to the following restrictions:

1. The act done must relate to the usual business of the firm, that is, the act done by the partner must be within the scope of his authority and related to the normal business of the firm. 
2. The act is such as is done for normal conduct of business of the firm. The usual way of carrying on the business will depend on the nature and circumstances of each particular case. 
3. The act to be done in the name of the firm or in any other manner expressing or implying an intention to bind the firm.   

Thus, a partner has implied authority to bind the firm by all acts done by him in all matters connected with the partnership business and which are done in the usual way and are not in their nature beyond the scope of partnership.

(c) A minor admitted to the benefits of a partnership firm is entitled to certain rights and may also have liabilities to third parties for the acts of the firm. Discuss the rights and liabilities (before attaining majority only) of the minor under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(6 Marks, Jan 2025)

Q 4. P, Q and R, are partners in a construction firm, PQR Associates. P buys cement on behalf of the firm from D. The cement is used in the ordinary course of the firm's business. P uses the cement for his personal purposes. The supplier D, who is unaware of the private use of cement by P, claims the price from the firm. The firm refuses to pay for the price, on the ground that the cement was never received by it. Referring to the provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, answer the following:
(i) Whether the Firm’s contention is tenable?
(ii) What would be your answer if a part of the cement so purchased by P was delivered to the firm by him, and the rest of the cement was used by him for his private use, about which neither the firm nor the supplier were aware?
(7 Marks, Jan 2025)

Answer: (i) Section 18: Partner as Agent of the Firm

• A partner acts as an agent of the firm for the purpose of its business.
• A partner embodies dual roles: a principal when acting in his own interest and in the common concern of the partnership, and an agent when acting on behalf of other partners.
• This agency rule applies only to acts performed for the firm's business and not to transactions between partners themselves.

Section 25: Joint and Several Liability of Partners

• Partners are jointly and severally responsible to third parties for acts within the scope of their express or implied authority.
• The term "act of firm" includes any act or omission by all partners, any partner, or an agent of the firm that creates enforceable rights or liabilities against the firm.

Section 26: Firm’s Liability for Wrongful Acts

• The firm is liable to the same extent as the partner for any loss or injury caused to a third party by a partner’s wrongful acts, provided:
  (a) The acts are performed in the ordinary course of the firm’s business, or
  (b) The acts are done with the authority of the partners.

In the case:

• P, a partner of PQR Associates, purchases cement from D on behalf of the firm in the ordinary course of business.
• P uses the cement for personal purposes instead of firm-related activities.
• D, the supplier, unaware of P’s private use, claims the price from the firm.
• The firm refuses to pay, arguing that the cement was never received by it

Applicability of Section 18

• Section 18 applies only to acts performed by partners for the purpose of the firm’s business, where the partner acts as the firm’s agent.
• In this case, P’s purchase of cement from D was made on behalf of the firm in the ordinary course of its business.

Tenability of the Firm’s Contention

• The firm’s refusal to pay D on the ground that the cement was never received by it is not tenable.
• Since P acted within the scope of his authority as an agent of the firm when purchasing the cement, the firm remains liable for the transaction, irrespective of P’s subsequent misuse for personal purposes.

(ii) Further for commission of the wrongful act by the partner, the firm is liable to the same extent as the partner for any loss or injury caused to a third party by the wrongful acts of a partner, if they are done by the partner while acting: 
(a) in the ordinary course of the business of the firm   
(b) with the authority of the partners. 
In the given case, part of the cement so purchased by P was delivered to the firm by him and the rest of the cement was used by him for his private use, was not known to the firm and the supplier. Since the act of the P to purchase the cement was in the ordinary course of business with the authority of the partner, however wrongful use by the partner will make the firm liable to the same extent as the partner for loss or injury caused to D. 
However, PQR Associates can take action against P, the partner. 

Q 5. (i) Explain the following terms under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
(1) Partner by holding out
(2) Nominal Partner
(4 Marks, Jan 2025)
(ii) "Dissolution of a partnership firm may occur by mutual agreement with the consent of the majority of partners, while compulsory dissolution requires an order from the court." Discuss this statement with reference to the relevant provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(3 Marks, Jan 2025)

Answer: (i) (1) Partner by holding out (Section 28 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932): Where a man holds himself out as a partner, or allows others to do it, he is then stopped from denying the character he has assumed and upon the faith of which creditors may be presumed to have acted. 
(2) Nominal Partner: A person who lends his name to the firm, without having any real interest in it, is called a nominal partner. He is not entitled to share the profits of the firm. Neither he invests in the firm nor takes part in the conduct of the business. He is, however liable to third parties for all acts of the firm.

(ii) Dissolution by Agreement (Section 40 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932): 
Section 40 gives right to the partners to dissolve the partnership by agreement with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners. ‘Contract between the partners’ means a contract already made. 
Hence, the statement ‘dissolution of a firm by the consent of the majority of the partners is not correct unless otherwise provided in a contract between them.

Compulsory dissolution (Section 41): A firm is compulsorily dissolved by the happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the firm to be carried on or for the partners to carry it on in partnership. Hence, the statement ‘compulsory dissolution requires an order from the court’ is not correct.

Q 7. Referring to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, answer the following:
(i) "If a partner is otherwise expelled; the expulsion is null and void." Discuss. (4 Marks, Sep 2024)
(ii) "The partner who is expelled will cease to be liable to the third party for the act of the firm done after expulsion." Analyse.
(2 Marks, Sep 2024)

Answer: (i) If a partner is otherwise expelled, the expulsion is null and void. 
According to Section 33 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 
(a) the power of expulsion must have existed in a contract between the partners;   
(b) the power has been exercised by a majority of the partners; and   
(c) it has been exercised in good faith.   
If all these conditions are not present, the expulsion is not deemed to be in bona fide interest of the business of the firm. 
The test of good faith as required under Section 33(1) includes three things:   
(a) The expulsion must be in the interest of the partnership.   
(b) The partner to be expelled is served with a notice.   
(c)  He is given an opportunity of being heard.   

Hence, it is correct to say that, if a partner is otherwise expelled, the expulsion is null and void.

(ii) “The partner who is expelled will cease to be liable to the third party for the act of the firm done after expulsion” 
According to Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, notwithstanding the expulsion a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the expulsion, until public notice is given of the expulsion.

However, an expelled partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner. Hence, the statement given is partially correct. 

Q 8. Referring to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, answer the following:
(i) Ram and Shyam are partners in a partnership firm styled as RS & Co. (the firm). Gopal, a renowned businessman, is their common friend. Ram introduced Gopal to Sundar, a supplier to the firm, as his newly joined partner. Gopal knowing that he is not a partner preferred to keep quiet on such an introduction. This information about Gopal, being a partner of the firm, was shared by Sundar with another businessman Madhav. Next day, Sundar supplied the raw material on credit and Madhav lent ₹ 5 lakhs to the firm for a short period on the understanding that Gopal is a partner of the firm. On due dates, the firm failed to discharge its liability towards both. Advise Gopal, whether he is liable to Sundar and Madhav for the aforesaid liability of the firm.
(3 Marks, Sep 2024)

Answer: (i) Partner by holding out (Section 28 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932):   
Anyone who by words spoken or written or by conduct represents himself, or knowingly permits himself to be represented, to be a partner in a firm, is liable as a partner in that firm to anyone who has on the faith of any such representation given credit to the firm, whether the person representing himself or represented to be a partner does or does not know that the representation has reached the person so giving credit. 

In the instant case, since Gopal allowed himself to be represented as a partner to the RS & Co. and third parties acted based on this belief and therefore, Gopal is held liable to Sundar as he represented himself by his act to be a partner to the RS & Co. 

However, Gopal is not liable to Madhav for the liabilities incurred by the firm. Information of Gopal being a partner to the firm was shared by the Sundar (Supplier to the firm) which is not falling within the ambit of doctrine of holding out. 

Hence Gopal is liable to Sundar and not to Madhav for the liability of the Firm. 

(ii) On admission as a new partner, Amar agreed to be liable for the existing debts (referred to as the old debts) of the firm by an agreement signed by the all partners including Amar. Examine, whether Amar will be liable in a suit filed by the creditor against the firm and all existing partners for recovery of the old debt of the firm.
(2 Marks, Sep 2024)

Answer: (ii) Rights and liabilities of new partner: The new firm, including the new partner who joins it, may agree to assume liability for the existing debts of the old firm, and creditors may agree to accept the new firm as their debtor and discharge the old partners. The creditor’s consent is necessary in every case to make the transaction operative. Novation is the technical term in a contract for substituted liability, of course, not confined only to case of partnership. 

But a mere agreement amongst partners cannot operate as Novation. Thus, an agreement between the partners and the incoming partner that he shall be liable for existing debts will not ipso facto give creditors of the firm any right against him. 

In the instant case, Amar will not be liable in a suit filed by the creditor against the firm and all existing partners for recovery of the old debt of the firm.

(iii) Suman, having 10% share in the property of ₹ 200 lakh of a firm retires from the firm on 31st March, 2023. The firm continues with the business thereafter without final settlement of accounts between the existing and retired partners and earned profits of ₹ 10 lakh during the financial year ending 31st March, 2024. Suman, in her own interest and in the absence of any provision in the partnership firm on this point, claimed ₹ 3 lakh from the firm toward the use of her share in the property and profit of the firm which was rejected by the partners. There is no contract between the partners contrary to the provisions of the Act in this regard. Examine the validity of the amount claimed by Suman under the provisions of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(2 Marks, Sep 2024)

Answer: (iii) According to section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932,  

• ​Where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be partner, and the surviving or continuing partners  
• carry on the business of the firm with the property of the firm without any final settlement of accounts as between them and the outgoing partner or his estate, then, in the absence of a contract to the contrary,   
• the outgoing partner or his estate is entitled at the option of himself or his representatives 
• to such share of the profits made since he ceased to be a partner as may be attributable to the use of his share of the property of the firm or 
• to interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount of his share in the property of the firm. 

In the instant case, Suman is entitled to claim either interest on her share in the property, i.e.  1,20,000 (6% of ` 20 Lakh) or a share of the profits, i.e. 1 Lakh (10% of  10 Lakh) from the firm for the use of her share in the property. Therefore, the claim of Suman of  3 Lakh is not valid.  

Q 9. State the circumstances in which a Court may, at the suit of the partner, dissolve a partnership firm under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(7 Marks, Sep 2024)

Answer: DISSOLUTION BY THE COURT (SECTION 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932): 
Court may, at the suit of the partner, dissolve a firm on any of the following ground: 

(a) Insanity/unsound mind: Where a partner (not a sleeping partner) has become of unsound mind, the court may dissolve the firm on a suit of the other partners or by the next friend of the insane partner. Temporary sickness is no ground for dissolution of firm.   

(b) Permanent incapacity: When a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner, then the court may dissolve the firm. Such permanent incapacity may result from physical disability or illness etc. 

(c) Misconduct: Where a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying on of business, the court may order for dissolution of the firm, by giving regard to the nature of business.   

(d) Persistent breach of agreement: Where a partner other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently commits breach of agreements relating to the management of the affairs of the firm or the conduct of its business, or otherwise so conduct himself in matters relating to the business that it is not reasonably practicable for other partners to carry on the business in partnership with him, then the court may dissolve the firm at the instance of any of the partners. Following comes in to category of breach of contract:

• Embezzlement,
• Keeping erroneous accounts 
• Holding more cash than allowed 
• Refusal to show accounts despite repeated request etc. 

(e) Transfer of interest: Where a partner other than the partner suing, has transferred the whole of his interest in the firm to a third party or has allowed his share to be charged or sold by the court, in the recovery of arrears of land revenue due by the partner, the court may dissolve the firm at the instance of any other partner. 

(f) Continuous/Perpetual losses: Where the business of the firm cannot be carried on except at a loss in future also, the court may order for its dissolution. 

(g)  Just and equitable grounds: Where the court considers any other ground to be just and equitable for the dissolution of the firm, it may dissolve a firm. The following are the cases for the just and equitable grounds- 
(i)   Deadlock in the management 
(ii) Where the partners are not in talking terms between them.   
(iii)  Loss of substratum.   
(iv)  Gambling by a partner on a stock exchange.

Q 10. The Indian Partnership Act does not make the registration of firms compulsory, yet the consequences or disabilities of non-registration have a persuasive pressure for their registration. Still, there are some cases where non-registration of firm does not affect certain rights. - Explain with reference to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
(6 Marks, Jun 2024)​

Answer: The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not make the registration of firms compulsory nor does it impose any penalty for non-registration. However, under Section 69, non-registration of partnership gives rise to a number of disabilities. Although registration of firms is not compulsory, yet the consequences or disabilities of non-registration have a persuasive pressure for their registration. 

​Exceptions: Non-registration of a firm does not, however affect the following rights: 
​1. The right of third parties to sue the firm or any partner. 
​2. The right of partners to sue for the dissolution of the firm or for the settlement of the accounts of a dissolved firm, or for realization of the property of a dissolved firm. 
3. The power of an Official Assignees, Receiver of Court to release the property of the insolvent partner and to bring an action. 
​4. The right to sue or claim a set-off if the value of suit does not exceed   ` 100 in value.
​5. The right to suit and proceeding instituted by legal representatives or heirs of the deceased partner of a firm for accounts of the firm or to realise the property of the firm.

Q 11. (i) P, Q, and R formed a partnership agreement to operate motor buses along specific routes for a duration of 12 years. After operating the business for four years, it was observed that the business incurred losses each year. Despite this, P is determined to continue the business for the remaining period. Examine with reference to the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Can P insist to continue the business? If so, what options are available to Q and R who are reluctant to continue operating the business?
(4 Marks, Jun 2024)

Answer: (i)  Section 40 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, gives right to the partners to dissolve the partnership by agreement with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners. ‘Contract between the partners’ means a contract already made. 

Also, according to section 44, the Court may, at the suit of a partner, may dissolve a firm on various grounds including where the business of the firm cannot be carried on except at a loss (in future also).   

In the instant case, P wants to continue the partnership business despite the losses incurred over the past four years and Q and R are reluctant to continue operating the business due to continuous losses. 

Here, P can insist on continuing the business if the partnership agreement does not specifically provide such a right to one or more partner / partners since Section 40 specifies that with the consent of all the partners or in accordance with a contract between the partners the firm can be dissolved. 

Options available to Q and R 
​Mutual Agreement to Dissolve the Partnership: Q and R can propose to P that the partnership be dissolved by mutual agreement. If P agrees, the partnership can be dissolved amicably.   
Dissolution by the Court: If P does not agree to dissolve the partnership mutually, Q and R can approach the court for an order under Section 44.  

(ii) A and B operate a textile merchant business in partnership. Mr. A finances the business and is a sleeping partner. In the regular course of business, B acquires certain fabric goods belonging to C. However, B is aware that these goods are stolen property. Despite this knowledge, B proceeds to purchase and sell some of these stolen goods. Moreover, B records proceeds from these sales in the firm’s books. Now, A wants to avoid the liability towards C, on the grounds of misconduct by B. In the light of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 discuss the liability of A and B towards C.
(3 Marks, Jun 2024)  

Answer:  According to Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, every partner is jointly and severally liable for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. 

​As per section 26, the firm is liable to the same extent as the partner for any wrongful act or omission of a partner while acting: 
​(a) in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, or   
(b) with the authority of the partners. 

Section 27 provides that the firm is liable if a partner, acting within the scope of his apparent authority, receives money or property from a third party and misapplies it, or if the firm in the course of its business receives money or property and the same is misapplied while it is in the custody of the firm.

In the instant case, both A and B are liable to C for the wrongful acts committed by B. A cannot avoid liability merely on the grounds of being a sleeping partner.

Q 12. "Dissolution of partnership doesn’t mean dissolution of firm". Do you agree with this statement? State any three situations where court can dissolve the partnership firm.
(7 Marks, Jun 2024)  

Answer: Dissolution of partnership doesn’t mean dissolution of firm. According to Section 39 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the dissolution of partnership between all partners of a firm is called the 'dissolution of the firm'. 

Thus, the dissolution of firm means the discontinuation of the legal relation, the dissolution of firm means the discontinuation of the legal relation existing between all the partners of the firm. But when only one or more partners retires or becomes incapacitated from acting as a partner due to death, insolvency or insanity, the partnership, the relationship between such a partner and other is dissolved, but the rest may decide to continue.
In such cases, there is in practice, no dissolution of the firm. The particular partner goes out, but the remaining partners carry on the business of the firm, it is called dissolution of partnership. In the case of dissolution of the firm, on the other hand, the whole firm is dissolved. The partnership terminates as between each and every partner of the firm.

Dissolution of Firm Vs. Dissolution of Partnership 

Dissolution By the Court (Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932): 
Court may, at the suit of the partner, dissolve a firm on any of the following grounds: 
(a) Insanity/unsound mind: Where a partner (not a sleeping partner) has become of unsound mind, the court may dissolve the firm on a suit of the other partners or by the next friend of the insane partner. Temporary sickness is no ground for dissolution of firm.   
(b) Permanent incapacity: When a partner, other than the partner suing, has become in any way permanently incapable of performing his duties as partner, then the court may dissolve the firm. Such permanent incapacity may result from physical disability or illness etc. 
(c) Misconduct: Where a partner, other than the partner suing, is guilty of conduct which is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying on of business, the court may order for dissolution of the firm, by giving regard to the nature of business. It is not necessary that misconduct must relate to the conduct of the business. The important point is the adverse effect of misconduct on the business.  In each case nature of business will decide whether an act is misconduct or not. 
(d) Persistent breach of agreement: Where a partner other than the partner suing, wilfully or persistently commits breach of agreements relating to the management of the affairs of the firm or the conduct of its business, or otherwise so conduct himself in matters relating to the business that it is not reasonably practicable for other partners to carry on the business in partnership with him, then the court may dissolve the firm at the instance of any of the partners. Following comes in to category of breach of contract: 

•  Embezzlement, 
• Keeping erroneous accounts 
• Holding more cash than allowed 
• Refusal to show accounts despite repeated request etc.

(e) Transfer of interest: Where a partner other than the partner suing, has transferred the whole of his interest in the firm to a third party or has allowed his share to be charged or sold by the court, in the recovery of arrears of land revenue due by the partner, the court may dissolve the firm at the instance of any other partner. 
(f) Continuous/Perpetual losses: Where the business of the firm cannot be carried on except at a loss in future also, the court may order for its dissolution. 
(g) Just and equitable grounds: Where the court considers any other ground to be just and equitable for the dissolution of the firm, it may dissolve a firm. The following are the cases for the just and equitable grounds- 
(i) Deadlock in the management. 
(ii) Where the partners are not in talking terms between them.   
(iii) Loss of substratum.   
(iv) Gambling by a partner on a stock exchange.