Dear all,

I'd be grateful for any references to authorities on the following issues:

1. Where a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is for breach of the
fair dealing, self dealing or no profits rules, can that claim be
barred after a 6 year period on the grounds that equity would apply
the Statute of Limitations by analogy?

2. Where a fiduciary is employed by both parties to a transaction as
agent and one of the parties to that transaction ("A") does not know
the fiduciary is also acting for the other party to the transaction
("B"). If A claims that the fiduciary acted in breach of fiduciary
duty and seeks to rescind the transaction as against B, what level of
knowledge must A bring home to B to justify rescission? (Assume that
this relates to a transaction for value.)

3. In what circumstances can the knowledge of the fiduciary who acts
as agent in 2 above be attributed to B and why should it be attributed
to B rather than A?

Any thoughts would be really welcome. With apologies for cross posting.

Kind regards

Ger

====

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.