Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Rescission in the Context of Fiduciary Relationships Lionel Smith
View through CrossRef
<p><span>It is frequently said that rescission is one of the remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty. This claim is a misleading simplification. Rescission can arise in the context of fiduciary relationships in several different ways, that are importantly different from one another. First, the exercise of a fiduciary power by a fiduciary can be rescinded when the power was used improperly according to the mission for whose better accomplishment it was granted. This includes the positive proof of use for an improper purpose or following inadequate deliberation. It also includes exercise of a fiduciary power while the holder was in a conflict of self-interest and fiduciary duty, or of fiduciary duty to one beneficiary and fiduciary duty to another. These kinds of rescission therefore include the so-called ‘self-dealing’ rule. They do not depend upon a breach of duty in the Hohfeldian sense. They do not involve rescission for any defect of consent, but for the improper use of a fiduciary power as judged according to its purpose. A quite different kind of rescission arises in the context of fiduciary relationships under the so-called ‘fair-dealing’ rule, when a fiduciary contracts with their own beneficiary. The rescission that can arise here is not the rescission of the exercise by a fiduciary of a fiduciary power. It is the rescission of a legal act (usually consent to a contract) by the <i>beneficiary</i> of a fiduciary relationship, on the basis that their consent to that legal act was impaired. This kind of rescission is an example of rescission for mistake. Usually there is a need to show the breach of a Hohfeldian duty of disclosure, although the role of this breach is not as the basis of rescission. It is rather to show that the fiduciary is legally responsible for the mistake of the beneficiary, since that mistake arose through the fiduciary’s failure to disclose information that was pertinent to the beneficiary’s decision-making process.</span><span></span></p>
Title: Rescission in the Context of Fiduciary Relationships Lionel Smith
Description:
<p><span>It is frequently said that rescission is one of the remedies available for breach of fiduciary duty.
This claim is a misleading simplification.
Rescission can arise in the context of fiduciary relationships in several different ways, that are importantly different from one another.
First, the exercise of a fiduciary power by a fiduciary can be rescinded when the power was used improperly according to the mission for whose better accomplishment it was granted.
This includes the positive proof of use for an improper purpose or following inadequate deliberation.
It also includes exercise of a fiduciary power while the holder was in a conflict of self-interest and fiduciary duty, or of fiduciary duty to one beneficiary and fiduciary duty to another.
These kinds of rescission therefore include the so-called ‘self-dealing’ rule.
They do not depend upon a breach of duty in the Hohfeldian sense.
They do not involve rescission for any defect of consent, but for the improper use of a fiduciary power as judged according to its purpose.
A quite different kind of rescission arises in the context of fiduciary relationships under the so-called ‘fair-dealing’ rule, when a fiduciary contracts with their own beneficiary.
The rescission that can arise here is not the rescission of the exercise by a fiduciary of a fiduciary power.
It is the rescission of a legal act (usually consent to a contract) by the <i>beneficiary</i> of a fiduciary relationship, on the basis that their consent to that legal act was impaired.
This kind of rescission is an example of rescission for mistake.
Usually there is a need to show the breach of a Hohfeldian duty of disclosure, although the role of this breach is not as the basis of rescission.
It is rather to show that the fiduciary is legally responsible for the mistake of the beneficiary, since that mistake arose through the fiduciary’s failure to disclose information that was pertinent to the beneficiary’s decision-making process.
</span><span></span></p>.
Related Results
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS TO FIDUSIAN OBJECT WARRANTIES THAT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED (ROYA) AND RE-REGISTERED ON THE FIDUSIAN ONLINE APPLICATION
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS TO FIDUSIAN OBJECT WARRANTIES THAT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED (ROYA) AND RE-REGISTERED ON THE FIDUSIAN ONLINE APPLICATION
In Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security, it is stipulated that fiduciary security must be registered. Based on the Circular of the Directorate General of General Leg...
Legalitas Eksekusi Terhadap Objek Jaminan Fidusia Yang Dialihkan Pihak Konsumen Tanpa Sepengetahuan Pihak Leasing
Legalitas Eksekusi Terhadap Objek Jaminan Fidusia Yang Dialihkan Pihak Konsumen Tanpa Sepengetahuan Pihak Leasing
asically the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects has been regulated in Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, specifically the procedure for executing fiduciar...
PENDAFTARAN JAMINAN FIDUSIA SEBAGAI PEMENUHAN ASAS PUBLISITAS
PENDAFTARAN JAMINAN FIDUSIA SEBAGAI PEMENUHAN ASAS PUBLISITAS
Before the birth of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law (UUJF), the issue of fiduciary security registration was not an obligation, but with the birth of the UUJF, registration of fiduciar...
The Fiduciary Obligation: A Proposal for the Sudanese Courts and Legislature
The Fiduciary Obligation: A Proposal for the Sudanese Courts and Legislature
This paper discusses the different aspects of the fiduciary obligation with specific emphasis on the position of Sudan. The historical aspects that connect the fiduciary obligation...
Execution of Motor Vehicle Fiduciary Assurance by Debt Collector
Execution of Motor Vehicle Fiduciary Assurance by Debt Collector
This study aims to find out and analyze the validity of the execution of Fiduciary Assurance by the Debt Collector in the form of objects of motor vehicle Fiduciary Assurance assoc...
Implikasi Hukum Dalam Transfer Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Persetujuan Penerima Fidusia
Implikasi Hukum Dalam Transfer Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Persetujuan Penerima Fidusia
The aim of this research is to identify and analyze the factors that drive fiduciaries to transfer fiduciary objects to third parties without the consent of the fiduciary receiver....
Investment Governance for Fiduciaries
Investment Governance for Fiduciaries
Governance is a word that is increasingly heard and read in modern times, be it corporate governance, global governance, or investment governance. Investment governance, the centra...
Juridical Review of Notary Role in Fiduciary Insurance in PT. Andalan Finance Indonesia (Nasmoco Credit) Semarang
Juridical Review of Notary Role in Fiduciary Insurance in PT. Andalan Finance Indonesia (Nasmoco Credit) Semarang
The purpose of this study was to analyze: 1) Implementation of the agreement with the Fiduciary PT. Andalan Finance Indonesia (Nasmoco Credit) Semarang. 2) The role of the Notary i...

