{"title":"受托责任的终结","authors":"Robert Flannigan","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v39i2.5019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some judges and writers have been moving our regulation of opportunism off its conceptual rails. Numerous departures from convention presently are nesting in the jurisprudence and the literature. None of the departures are justified, and all should be purged. They choke the coherent expression of principle. If not dispatched, they may invite or license the collapse of our prudent strict supervision of the mischief that vitally undermines synergy and community.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"157-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The End of Fiduciary Accountability\",\"authors\":\"Robert Flannigan\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/uqlj.v39i2.5019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Some judges and writers have been moving our regulation of opportunism off its conceptual rails. Numerous departures from convention presently are nesting in the jurisprudence and the literature. None of the departures are justified, and all should be purged. They choke the coherent expression of principle. If not dispatched, they may invite or license the collapse of our prudent strict supervision of the mischief that vitally undermines synergy and community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"157-196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v39i2.5019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v39i2.5019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Some judges and writers have been moving our regulation of opportunism off its conceptual rails. Numerous departures from convention presently are nesting in the jurisprudence and the literature. None of the departures are justified, and all should be purged. They choke the coherent expression of principle. If not dispatched, they may invite or license the collapse of our prudent strict supervision of the mischief that vitally undermines synergy and community.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
