Talk:Keech v Sandford
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Whether the trustee was fibbing[edit]
I expect this won't be one of the hottest talk pages on Wikipedia, but someone (unfortunately without an account) just inserted a line that there was definitely evidence that the lease wasn't going to be renewed for the infant's benefit. But I'm wondering whether that was true -the judgment was on the basis that it was, but you could well have had a situation where the landlord and the trustee were colluding, and if the trustee hadn't scratched the landlord's back, maybe the landlord would have renewed the lease. Isn't the point of the rule, that there may be difficulties in telling who is telling the truth, and a strict duty of loyalty avoids the difficult evidential and hypothetical inquiries into the trustees' state of mind? Wikidea 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)