{"title":"信托责任被打破","authors":"Robert Flannigan","doi":"10.1093/tandt/ttab080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.","PeriodicalId":43396,"journal":{"name":"Trusts & Trustees","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fiduciary accountability shattered\",\"authors\":\"Robert Flannigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/tandt/ttab080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trusts & Trustees\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trusts & Trustees","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The law of fiduciary accountability has for some time been harried by the misinformed assertions and suppositions of various judges and writers. The numerous misconceptions increased the risk that the conventional understanding of the jurisdiction would collapse. That has now happened. The Supreme Court unconsciously (or consciously) rejected its own jurisprudence to reshape the conventional regulation into an extensive judicial power to assess the merits of the good faith actions of fiduciaries.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
