Talk:Fiduciary/Archives/2012

Merges

Should the Duty of Loyalty article be merged into this article, with the Self-Dealing and Corporate Opportunity articles listed as subheadings under Duty of Loyalty? Tayl1257 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have done away with the old text and introduced a new version of the article which is more comprehensive and accurate. I have stuck to the basic principles of fiduciary duties, this is because the law w/regard to equity - and fiduciary principles, especially - can differ greatly between Canada, UK, US, and Australia. --Charlemagne the Hammer 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have not yet inserted footnotes or general links --Charlemagne the Hammer 03:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the overhaul generally, but I think it was a bit much to make it essentially an article about UK law. The Salmon v. Meinhard quote is probably the most-used definition in the US, and I think it would be appropriate to include it. What I would prefer to see is a "General/Historical" section, and then sections on law in various jurisdictions. cpro 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

cpro - i tried to only do the basics so that its accurate for all jursidictions... im not in america, so if you have some information for the USA jurisdiction that you would like to see in there then thats cool. by the salmon v meinhard, are you referring to "a level higher than that trodden by the crowd"?? i already have that quote in there... not sure what you mean there. General historical section is a very good idea. w/regard to jurisdictions, perhaps we can arrange the article so that the majority of the article describes common features to all jurisdictions... then note major jurisdictional differences at the end? cheers for the feed back --Charlemagne the Hammer 06:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vanity?

Who are Melanie Jizzle and Philip Fizzler? That MUST be a prank. I'm going to remove them.

qweryqwery

• I think the page may have been written by law students. It is common for lawyers to use fictious names to describe how a law operates. It appears as though the names are not vanity but force of habit. I would perhaps reword to use fiducary and person, etc.

• I think that "force of habit" is being excessively charitable. Fictitious names are usually sensical. "Paul" is the Plaintiff, "Daniel" is the Defendant; "Tim" is the Testator, "Gene" is the Grantee; Vic usually winds up being the victim of something in Bar Exam problems, and Axel likely faces criminal liability as an accessory. See the article on computer programming names, where such names are identified as "essentially metasyntactical variables." But a full first and last name? There's no explanation. I vote for removal, replacing with, as suggested, "fiduciary" and "beneficiary."--64.80.112.170 14:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't make it beyond the opening sentence: "Fiduciary in common law jurisdictions, is a legal term used to describe a relationship of between [sic] a person who occupies a particular position of trust, power or responsibility with respect to the rights, property or interests..." Is readability such a terrible thing?195.47.86.1 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the intro somewhat. I think you should give the article another chance! 204.177.90.3 15:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You Law students are WHACK...all about Engineering baby!!! - Vinsanity

POV?

"Canadian law, for example, has developed a cutting edge body of fiduciary case law, moreso than American & ANI law, whilst Australian & ANI law and British law have developed more conservative approaches than either the USA or Canada."

Apart from the non-existence of "British law" or "American law", this seems pretty POV to me. Legis 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the part about "If a fiduciary acts improperly, or abuses their position, punishment can be sought in the form of starvation or amputation." at the end of the first paragraph sounds like a prank to me.

Uh... punishment what?

"If a fiduciary acts improperly, or abuses their position, punishment can be sought in the form of starvation or amputation."

Where did this come from!?

Term is not defined early (or possibly ever)

Why is the term not adequately defined in the first paragraph (preferably the first sentence)? I quote:

"The fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties..."

That doesn't help much; there are many varieties of legal relationship between two or more parties.

"... that in English common law is arguably the most important concept"

Blah blah, who cares when you haven't told me enough about the relationship in the first place?

And then off the page goes into law-law land... 70.112.253.252 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope, ten months later, this complaint has now been addressed. Fbarw (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the article address the popular sentiment that fiduciary responsibility leads to amoral or immoral corporate behavior?

Some sources explain fiduciary responsibility as an obligation to favor profit over conflicting good behavior (e.g. environmental stewardship, human rights).

Should the article address this?

For example:

"The legal stricture known as fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit in inherently amoral economic competition, corporations are by their nature amoral as well."

--Dwalsh3 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)