New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Partnership Act, to incur third-party debt on behalf of the partnership has not been considered in any reported New Jersey opinion. However, case law from other jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Partnership Act are instructive on this point and “in interpreting New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Partnership Act it is appropriate to refer to the application of the statute in other states.” Conklin Farm v. Leibowitz, 140 N.J. 417, 658 A.2d 1257, 1261 (N.J 1995). See also Seventy-Three Land, Inc. v. Maxlar Partners, 270 N.J.Super. 332, 637 A.2d 202, 203 (1994) (explaining that in instances where courts of other jurisdictions have adopted the Uniform Partnership Act and have considered an issue redge Co., 339 Pa. 26, 14 A.2d 325, 328 (1940) (<HOLDING>); Chelsea Nat’l Bank v. Lincoln Plaza Towers
holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business recognizing that an attorney hired to represent a debt or is not employed in the ordinary course holding that a bank guarantee is usually not given in the ordinary course of partnership business therefore all the partners must authorize by express authority or ratification a guarantee of third person debt holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced