Cycle 7 pt 2 and certainties

A legal professional examining case law documents with a gavel and scales of justice in the background, reflecting the concepts of fiduciary duties and no conflict rules.

Understanding the No Conflict Rule in Law

Challenge your knowledge on the principles of no conflict in fiduciary duties with this engaging quiz. Test your understanding of key cases and concepts essential for legal professionals and students alike.

Topics covered include:

  • No Conflict Rule
  • Fair Dealing
  • Unauthorized Profit Rule
  • Consent in Conflict Situations
  • Case Law Applications
15 Questions4 MinutesCreated by AnalyzingCourt101
NO CONFLICT RULE
Bray
Aberdeen Railway Co
Tito
(NO CONFLICT RULE) PERSONAL INTEREST CANNOT CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF WHOM HE IS BOUND TO PROTECT
Bray
Aberdeen Railway Co
Tito
(NO CONFLICT RULE) ¬¬SELF-DEALING – CAN’T DEAL FOR YOURSELF AND PRINCIPAL IN SAME TRANSACTION
Bray
Aberdeen Railway Co
Tito
(NO CONFLICT RULE) COURTS SUSPICIOUS OF WORKAROUNDS (SELLING TO WIFE)
Burrell
Re Thompson
Ex p James
(NO CONFLICT RULE ) COURTS SUSPICIOUS OF WORKAROUNDS (SELLING TO COMPANY)-
Burrell
Re Thompson
Ex p James
(NO CONFLICT RULE) CONFLICT OK IF CONSENT OBTAINED
Burrell
Re Thompson
Ex p James
FAIR-DEALING : WHERE FIDUCIARY TRANSACTS WITH PRINCIPAL – VOIDABLE UNLESS CAN SHOW NO ADVANTAGE TAKEN OF FIDUCIARY POSITION
Tito
Thomson
Clarke Boyce
CONFLICT WITH FAIR DEALING OK IF THERES CONSENT
Tito
Thomson
Clarke Boyce
CONFLICT BETWEEN PRINCIPLES NOT OK UNLESS THERES CONSENT
Tito
Thomson
Clarke Boyce
NO UNAUTHORISED PROFIT RULE
Keech v Sanford
Boardman v Phipps
Brown v IRC
(UNAUTHORISED PROFIT RULE ) CANT EXPLOIT OPPORTUNITY OR INDIRECTLY MAKE A PROFIT
Keech v Sanford
Boardman v Phipps
Brown v IRC
(UNAUTHORISED PROFIT RULE ) USE OF PROPERTY ALSO BREACH (USING INTEREST)
Keech v Sanford
Boardman v Phipps
Brown v IRC
USE OF PROPERTY IS OKAY WITH FULL INFORMED CONSENT GAINED BUT UNCLEAR WHOSE CONSENT IS NEEDED
Boardman v Phipps
Industrial Development Consultants
Bristol and West Building Society
CANNOT RESIGN TO EXPLOIT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
Boardman v Phipps
Industrial Development Consultants
Bristol and West Building Society
UNCONSCIOUS OMISSION NOT SUFFICIENT FOR BREACH
Boardman v Phipps
Industrial Development Consultants
Bristol and West Building Society
{"name":"Cycle 7 pt 2 and certainties", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Challenge your knowledge on the principles of no conflict in fiduciary duties with this engaging quiz. Test your understanding of key cases and concepts essential for legal professionals and students alike.Topics covered include:No Conflict RuleFair DealingUnauthorized Profit RuleConsent in Conflict SituationsCase Law Applications","img":"https:/images/course4.png"}
Powered by: Quiz Maker