§425-102 Knowledge and notice. (a) A person knows a fact if the person has actual knowledge of it.
(b) A person has notice of a fact if the person:
(1) Knows of it;
(2) Has received a notification of it; or
(3) Has reason to know it exists from all of the facts known to the person at the time in question.
(c) A person notifies or gives a notification to another by taking steps reasonably required to inform the other person in ordinary course, whether or not the other person learns of it.
(d) A person receives a notification when the notification:
(1) Comes to the person's attention; or
(2) Is duly delivered at the person's place of business or at any other place held out by the person as a place for receiving communications.
(e) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f), a person other than an individual knows, has notice, or receives a notification of a fact for purposes of a particular transaction when the individual conducting the transaction knows, has notice, or receives a notification of the fact, or in any event when the fact would have been brought to the individual's attention if the person had exercised reasonable diligence. A person exercises reasonable diligence if the person maintains reasonable routines for communicating significant information to the individual conducting the transaction and there is reasonable compliance with the routines. Reasonable diligence does not require an individual acting for the person to communicate information unless the communication is part of the individual's regular duties or the individual has reason to know of the transaction and that the transaction would be materially affected by the information.
(f) A partner's knowledge, notice, or receipt of a notification of a fact relating to the partnership is effective immediately as knowledge by, notice to, or receipt of a notification by the partnership, except in the case of a fraud on the partnership committed by or with the consent of that partner. [L 1999, c 284, pt of §1]
Case Notes
The "fraud on the partnership" exception did not apply, where one partner admitted to operating a Ponzi scheme, and defendants (other partners) asserted an affirmative good faith defense; defendants did not demonstrate that the partner totally abandoned the principal's interest and that the partner's interests were completely adverse to the partnerships. Question whether a partner's knowledge of a fact relating to the partnership is necessarily imputed to individual partners or only the partnership under subsection (f) to be certified to the Hawaii supreme court. 88 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (2015).