界定受托人地位

Julian Velasco
{"title":"界定受托人地位","authors":"Julian Velasco","doi":"10.4337/9781784714833.00012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A familiar problem to scholars of fiduciary law is that of definition. Fiduciary law has been called “messy,” “elusive,” and “unusually vexing.” In part, this is because fiduciary law principles appear in many areas of law, but are applied differently in each. This has made the development of a unified theory difficult. Some scholars have doubted whether it is even possible; others have insisted that it is not possible. Nevertheless, scholars continue to try to bring order to the perceived chaos. My goal in this short paper will be to sketch out the contours of a reasonably coherent theory that covers enough phenomena to have a plausible claim to descriptive accuracy while also providing objective criteria for the exclusion of marginal cases. While a simple definition would be nice, some complexity may be necessary in order to achieve this goal.","PeriodicalId":376950,"journal":{"name":"Fiduciary Law eJournal","volume":"114 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delimiting Fiduciary Status\",\"authors\":\"Julian Velasco\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/9781784714833.00012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A familiar problem to scholars of fiduciary law is that of definition. Fiduciary law has been called “messy,” “elusive,” and “unusually vexing.” In part, this is because fiduciary law principles appear in many areas of law, but are applied differently in each. This has made the development of a unified theory difficult. Some scholars have doubted whether it is even possible; others have insisted that it is not possible. Nevertheless, scholars continue to try to bring order to the perceived chaos. My goal in this short paper will be to sketch out the contours of a reasonably coherent theory that covers enough phenomena to have a plausible claim to descriptive accuracy while also providing objective criteria for the exclusion of marginal cases. While a simple definition would be nice, some complexity may be necessary in order to achieve this goal.\",\"PeriodicalId\":376950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fiduciary Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"114 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fiduciary Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784714833.00012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fiduciary Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784714833.00012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

信托法学者熟悉的一个问题是定义问题。信托法被称为“混乱”、“难以捉摸”和“异常令人烦恼”。在某种程度上,这是因为信托法原则出现在许多法律领域,但在每个领域的应用都不同。这使得统一理论的发展变得困难。一些学者甚至怀疑这是否可能;其他人则坚持认为这是不可能的。尽管如此,学者们仍在继续试图给人们所感知到的混乱带来秩序。在这篇短文中,我的目标是勾勒出一个合理连贯的理论的轮廓,这个理论涵盖了足够多的现象,可以合理地声称描述的准确性,同时也为排除边缘情况提供客观标准。虽然简单的定义很好,但为了实现这一目标,可能需要一些复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Delimiting Fiduciary Status
A familiar problem to scholars of fiduciary law is that of definition. Fiduciary law has been called “messy,” “elusive,” and “unusually vexing.” In part, this is because fiduciary law principles appear in many areas of law, but are applied differently in each. This has made the development of a unified theory difficult. Some scholars have doubted whether it is even possible; others have insisted that it is not possible. Nevertheless, scholars continue to try to bring order to the perceived chaos. My goal in this short paper will be to sketch out the contours of a reasonably coherent theory that covers enough phenomena to have a plausible claim to descriptive accuracy while also providing objective criteria for the exclusion of marginal cases. While a simple definition would be nice, some complexity may be necessary in order to achieve this goal.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Directors' Duties: Section 172 of the UK Companies Act Value Preservation Increasingly Acknowledged as Primary Purpose and Fiduciary Duty What Would Settlor Do? Immortal Trust Settlors, Federal Transfer Taxes, and the Protean Irrevocable Trust The Pluralist Foundations of Corporate Law and Governance A General Defense of Information Fiduciaries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1