From:                                                       Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues <ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA> on behalf of Lionel Smith, Prof. <lionel.smith@MCGILL.CA>

Sent:                                                         Friday 8 September 2023 10:07

To:                                                            ENRICHMENT@LISTS.MCGILL.CA

Subject:                                                   [RDG] Smith, The Law of Loyalty

Attachments:                                        Smith The Law of Loyalty 9780197664582[4].pdf

 

Published today—unfortunately, only in North America for now—is my book The Law of Loyalty (OUP). Publication in the rest of the world will apparently only be in December. From the blurb:

 

“The Law of Loyalty is a study of the principles governing the use of legal powers that are held for other-regarding ends. It addresses both public law and private law, and examines both the common law and the civil law. It aims to provide a theory of how Western law regulates the situations in which we hold legal powers, not for ourselves, but for and on behalf of others.

It does this by elucidating the justificatory principles that are attracted in those situations. These principles include that other-regarding powers can only properly be used for the purposes for which they were granted; that they should not be used when the holder is in a conflict of self-interest and duty, or a conflict of duty and duty; and that the holder is presumptively accountable for any profits extracted from the other-regarding role.

These principles stand behind the detailed legal rules that govern these relationships in multiple legal systems and in multiple public and private settings. In private law this includes the powers of trustees, corporate directors, agents and mandataries; in public law it includes all powers held for public purposes, whether they be held by the Prime Minister, by a police officer, or by a judge.”

 

I permit myself to announce it on the RDG because a principal argument is that the liability of a fiduciary to account for an unauthorized gain is not an example of ‘restitution for wrongs’ but is rather the direct implementation of the primary obligation of accountability that is inherent in a fiduciary relationship.

 

The attached flyer has the now-customary discount code.

 

With my best wishes,

Lionel