信义义务和非法人企业实体:为“明显不合理”标准辩护

Mark J. Loewenstein
{"title":"信义义务和非法人企业实体:为“明显不合理”标准辩护","authors":"Mark J. Loewenstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.893213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article wades into the debate between contractarians and anti-contractarians over the extent to which statutes on unincorporated business entities should limit the ability of the participants in those entities to contract around fiduciary duties. Statutes enacted in the past several years provide considerable, but not complete, freedom to limit fiduciary duties. Contractarians argue that statutory limitations are inefficient and unnecessary, while anti-contractarians take the view that the statutes provide too much freedom of contract. This article stakes out a middle ground, arguing that the drafters of the statutes got it right and that in the absence of statutory limitations the courts would likely impose limitations. The middle ground chosen - that limitations cannot be \"manifestly unreasonable\" - should prove workable over time. By providing statutory guidance, lawyers and others advising unincorporated business entities will be better able to craft enforceable agreements. Finally, this article presents some ideas on how courts might interpret the term \"manifestly unreasonable.\"","PeriodicalId":170753,"journal":{"name":"Tulsa Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fiduciary Duties and Unincorporated Business Entities: In Defense of the 'Manifestly Unreasonable' Standard\",\"authors\":\"Mark J. Loewenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.893213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article wades into the debate between contractarians and anti-contractarians over the extent to which statutes on unincorporated business entities should limit the ability of the participants in those entities to contract around fiduciary duties. Statutes enacted in the past several years provide considerable, but not complete, freedom to limit fiduciary duties. Contractarians argue that statutory limitations are inefficient and unnecessary, while anti-contractarians take the view that the statutes provide too much freedom of contract. This article stakes out a middle ground, arguing that the drafters of the statutes got it right and that in the absence of statutory limitations the courts would likely impose limitations. The middle ground chosen - that limitations cannot be \\\"manifestly unreasonable\\\" - should prove workable over time. By providing statutory guidance, lawyers and others advising unincorporated business entities will be better able to craft enforceable agreements. Finally, this article presents some ideas on how courts might interpret the term \\\"manifestly unreasonable.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":170753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tulsa Law Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tulsa Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.893213\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tulsa Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.893213","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

本文深入探讨了契约主义者和反契约主义者之间的争论,即关于非法人企业实体的法规应在多大程度上限制这些实体中参与者围绕信义义务订立契约的能力。过去几年颁布的法规提供了相当大的、但不完全的自由来限制受托责任。契约主义者认为法定限制是低效和不必要的,而反契约主义者则认为法律提供了太多的契约自由。本文提出了一个中间立场,认为法规的起草者是正确的,在没有法定限制的情况下,法院可能会施加限制。随着时间的推移,所选择的中间立场——即限制不能“明显不合理”——应该被证明是可行的。通过提供法定指导,律师和其他为非法人企业提供咨询的人将能够更好地起草可执行的协议。最后,本文就法院如何解释“明显不合理”一词提出了一些看法。
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
Fiduciary Duties and Unincorporated Business Entities: In Defense of the 'Manifestly Unreasonable' Standard
This article wades into the debate between contractarians and anti-contractarians over the extent to which statutes on unincorporated business entities should limit the ability of the participants in those entities to contract around fiduciary duties. Statutes enacted in the past several years provide considerable, but not complete, freedom to limit fiduciary duties. Contractarians argue that statutory limitations are inefficient and unnecessary, while anti-contractarians take the view that the statutes provide too much freedom of contract. This article stakes out a middle ground, arguing that the drafters of the statutes got it right and that in the absence of statutory limitations the courts would likely impose limitations. The middle ground chosen - that limitations cannot be "manifestly unreasonable" - should prove workable over time. By providing statutory guidance, lawyers and others advising unincorporated business entities will be better able to craft enforceable agreements. Finally, this article presents some ideas on how courts might interpret the term "manifestly unreasonable."
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
Mutual Mistake or Excuse: Which Approach to Pursue When Seeking Judicial Relief From Contractual Obligations on the Basis of Supervening Knowledge? Our Proudest Boast Two Theories of Deterrent Punishment Reclaiming the Primary Significance Test: Dictionaries, Corpus Linguistics, and Trademark Genericide Taming the Wild West: Online Excesses, Reactions and Overreactions
×
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