Talk:Fiduciary: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:59, 23 February 2006

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

List of Relationships

Next on the list of To Do is to turn the list of relationships that usually carry a duty into a definition list... explain why the duty is presumed, the historical origin of the presumption, etc. etc.

is the relationship between husband and wife fiduciaral ?

answer: It is not presumed to be fiduciary relationship, but may be easily established. shall include this in next edit --Charlemagne the Hammer 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Please note that I have not yet inserted footnotes or general links --[[User:Charlemagne the Hammer|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.  [[User:Cprovenzano|cpro]] 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 == Vanity? ==