Because we don't live in a world where all our problems are either/or.
Sometimes the solution is to compromise, because everyone is likely going to be giving up a little piece of what they want in order to make the situation workable for all. Not all problems involve bandmates unwilling to work toward a resolution.
But yes, in the extreme case where someone's behaving like a six-year-old and having a tantrum, you need to let them go.
As far as a partnership agreement goes, to me that signals a level of self-importance at the hobby level that I would want nothing to do with.
If hobby bands make money, they're sure not making enough to warrant that sort of preparation, and I've never in my life been asked to sign onto such an agreement. I've been in lots of bands.
So that would seem extreme and would also indicate to me that whoever is proposing it has aspirations around money that they may not be fully upfront about and that are at best unrealistic. It's also a good indication that I'll be pushed to do work for money that I'm not interested in doing, because it shows me that money is the most important thing to that person. Been there, done that, not interested in playing in 110* weather outside because someone is offering the band $1000, and I don't care how much pressure you put on me to play that show. Find someone else. There's someone else who will do that gig.
That is fine for others, maybe, but I don't have unrealistic expectations surrounding the earning potential of a hobby band. Here's how hobby bands work: Four people in the band means a four way split of the take. If someone's doing an inordinate amount of extra work, split out an agreed upon percentage and compensate that person, then split the rest four ways. Anything beyond that is overkill.
