In Hill v. Hearron (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 763, a forfeiture provision operated like a punitive liquidated damages clause. It was in that context we said (at page 767): "Although . . . the contract herein gave to the nondefaulting partners the right to termination of same in the event of default, under the rule of the cited cases the forfeiture provision was ineffectual. Therefore since plaintiffs had an interest in the assets of the joint venture at the time they were acquired and since their partnership interest therein continued until the time of the cancellation of the agreement, then, as between the parties, that interest in the partnership property still exists notwithstanding the termination of the agreement." (See Moldovan v. Fischer (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 600, 611 "the provision of the partnership agreement . . . denying to the general partner the right to an accounting and forfeiting her investment in the event of a termination of the partnership agreement is unenforceable," citing Hill v. Hearron.)