Abstract
Abstract Believing that the law of fiduciary accountability lacks coherent definition, various active writers have sought to provide that definition. Their analyses, however, are misinformed or misconceived. The consequence is that the fiduciary literature continues to be a source of obfuscation, rather than illumination. Here I examine the attempt of one writer to frame the law in what he describes as a ‘relational’ theory. I discuss the diverse misconceptions that impair his work.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
