Short answer. Not completely. Article 1832 of the Civil Code provides that dissolution terminates partner authority except as necessary to wind up partnership affairs or complete unfinished transactions. Partners retain authority for winding-up purposes even after dissolution — but new business beyond that is no longer authorized.
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 →
The general rule: dissolution ends authority
Article 1832 establishes the principle: dissolution terminates all authority of any partner to act for the partnership. Once the partnership is dissolved — whether by the act of the partners, by one partner's death or insolvency, or by operation of law — no partner has a general mandate to conduct new business on behalf of the partnership. The legal entity is in a closing phase, not an operating one.
The exception: winding up and completing unfinished transactions
However, the termination of authority is not absolute. Article 1832 carves out an important exception: authority continues to the extent necessary to wind up partnership affairs or to complete transactions begun but not then finished. This makes practical sense — the partnership has existing obligations, ongoing contracts, and assets to collect and distribute. Partners need authority to close out those matters. Selling partnership assets, collecting debts owed to the partnership, settling accounts with creditors, and completing partially performed contracts all fall within this winding-up authority. Starting wholly new business does not.
The distinction between dissolution by agreement and dissolution by death or insolvency
Article 1832 sets up two scenarios. When dissolution is not caused by the act, insolvency, or death of a partner — for example, it is by mutual agreement with notice to all — authority terminates immediately as between the partners, because all know about the dissolution. When dissolution is caused by a partner's act, insolvency, or death, the rules in Article 1833 further govern liability among partners for actions taken by a partner who may not have known of the dissolution event. The distinction matters for determining who is bound by acts taken after dissolution.
What this means for third parties
Article 1832 itself notes that, as to persons who are not partners, a separate rule of the Code governs how dissolution affects them, distinct from the rule among the partners themselves. Third parties who have been doing business with the partnership may not know it was dissolved. A partner who contracts with a third party after dissolution — beyond what is needed for winding up — may still bind the partnership to that third party if the third party had no notice of the dissolution, depending on the circumstances. This is one reason proper notification of dissolution to known creditors and the public matters: it limits the partnership's exposure to unauthorized acts by partners acting after dissolution.