Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law

Edited by D. G. Smith and Andrew S. Gold

The Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law offers specially commissioned chapters written by leading scholars and covers a wide range of important topics in fiduciary law. Topical contributions discuss: various fiduciary relationships; the duty of loyalty and other fiduciary obligations; fiduciary remedies; the role of equity; the role of trust; international and comparative perspectives; and public fiduciary law. This Research Handbook will be of interest to readers concerned with both theory and practice, as it incorporates significant new insights and developments in the field.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 4: Delimiting fiduciary status

Julian Velasco

Abstract

Concerned that excessive expansion of fiduciary status will inevitably dilute fiduciary law, the author seeks a theory of fiduciary law that can establish the outer limits of fiduciary status. Theories tend to involve a trade-off between descriptive accuracy and intellectual coherence. In order to assess and maintain the descriptive accuracy of his efforts, the author employs a concentric circle or heat-map metaphor. He begins with the fiduciary powers theory developed by Paul Miller, according to which fiduciary power is a form of authority ordinarily derived from the legal personality of another. However, the author argues that the defining factor of fiduciary relationships should be such power, without regard to whether the power is discretionary. Under this theory, trustees and agents are fiduciaries categorically. Advisers generally do not have fiduciary power over their clients, and thus should not be considered categorical fiduciaries. However, in order to maintain descriptive accuracy, the author argues that certain advisory relationships, where the adviser's influence amounts to de facto power, should be accorded fiduciary status. All other relationships, including those based on solely on trust and vulnerability, should not be considered fiduciary relationships. Nevertheless, anyone who satisfies the definition of a categorical fiduciary should be considered a fiduciary to that extent.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.