Short answer. Generally no. Article 1832 says that once a partnership is dissolved, a partner's authority to act for it is terminated — except so far as is necessary to wind up the partnership's affairs or to finish transactions already begun. A partner cannot commit the dissolved firm to brand-new deals of his own.
What the law says
Except so far as may be necessary to wind up partnership affairs or to complete transactions begun but not then finished
Civil Code, Article 1832 — Effect of Dissolution on Authority. Read the full provision →
What the law says
dissolution terminates all authority of any partner to act for the partnership
Civil Code, Article 1832 — Effect of Dissolution on Authority. Read the full provision →
Dissolution ends ordinary authority
Dissolution does not make a partnership vanish overnight, but it does change what its partners may do. Article 1832 provides that dissolution terminates all authority of any partner to act for the partnership, with a crucial carve-out: except so far as may be necessary to wind up partnership affairs or to complete transactions begun but not then finished. So the general answer to whether a partner can still enter new deals is no. His power to bind the firm survives only for the limited work of closing it down — collecting what is owed, paying debts, finishing jobs already under way — not for launching fresh commitments the partnership never took on before it dissolved.
Winding up versus new business
The line the article draws is between finishing and starting. Completing transactions begun but not then finished is permitted, because those obligations already belonged to the partnership; walking away from them would harm both the firm and the people it was dealing with. Entering a genuinely new transaction is different — it creates a liability the partnership never assumed while it was a going concern, and Article 1832 does not authorise it. In practice the hard cases sit on the boundary: whether a particular step is really the tail end of an old deal or the beginning of a new one is a fact-specific question.
As between the partners
Article 1832 splits the effect of dissolution into two audiences. As among the partners themselves, authority to bind one another ends on dissolution, and where the dissolution was caused by a partner's act, insolvency or death, the internal liability for a partner's post-dissolution act is worked out under Article 1833, which turns on whether the acting partner knew of the dissolution. So even between partners, a partner who ploughs on with new business after dissolution generally cannot spread the resulting liability onto the others if they can show his authority had already ended.
As to outsiders, and the practical safeguard
The article treats persons who are not partners under a separate rule, because an outsider who did not know of the dissolution may still be protected when he deals in good faith with a partner who appears to be carrying on the business. That is why formally winding up — notifying those the firm dealt with, and settling outstanding matters promptly — matters so much: it removes the appearance of continuing authority on which a stranger might rely. For the partners, the safest course after dissolution is to confine every act to closing the business, and to make the dissolution known.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1832 — Effect of Dissolution on Authority
- Civil Code, Article 1833 — Liability Among Partners After Dissolution