Talk:Duty of care
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. | |
There are three words with very similar meanings: due diligence, due care, and duty of care. If there are important distictions between these, I think that the articles should make them more explicit. Whether or not the words have exactly the same meaning, it might make sense to have them all in the same article - it might make it easier to understand the similarities and differences in the meanings. ike9898 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Due diligence (in the U.S. at least) is more often used in the context of business transactions, particularly where a fiduciary relationship is involved. I think it tends to go a little beyond the standard duty of care. BD2412 talk 13:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding of the word is similar. To my mind, due diligence is usually used as a legal defence. Where one party claims that another party has violated a duty of some sort (in tort law or otherwise), the defendant is often allowed to argue "due diligence" as a defence, saying that they took reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occuring. DD is not all that different from standard of care which asks if the defendant acted reasonably. However, I don't think DD and DoC are similar at all. DoC is a word of art only used in tort law. DD is a bit broader than that. It's good that the issue was brought up, the articles could always use more work, but I don't think a merge is in order. --PullUpYourSocks 16:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would submit that legal due diligence is just one facet of the concept of due diligence, the other two being financial and cultural. In a business setting, all three should be done prior to a merger & acquisition, for example (although the latter is usually neglected, often with dire consequences". Therefore, I consider "due diligence" to much broader than just its legal implications. In light of this, I would advocate NOT combining the articles and even expanding the "due diligence" article to reflect this broader sense. --PeterVog 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Duty of care is the basis of negligence. While it is true that a person who fails to deliver due diligence may cause loss and damage to another and so give that other a cause of action in negligence, there is no conceptual link between them at all and the idea of merging them is absurd. David91 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DUTY OF CARE
I WOULD THINK THAT DUE DILIGENCE IS PERHAPS A LITTLE FAR OFF FROM DUTY OF CARE. ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF DUTY OF CARE REQUIRES THE OBSERVER TO AMONGST MANY OTHER THINGS, LOOK INTO MATTERS OF RELATIONSHIP. SEEING THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS PROXIMATE ENOUGH TO WARRANT A DUTY OF CARE. A VIOLATION OF SUCH GIVES RISE TO NEGLIGENCE WHICH FURTHER ON DRAWS THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGES (SUIT) IT IS HERE OR EVEN FURTHER THAT WE MAY NOW INTRODUCE THE ELEMENT OF DUE DILIGENCE. HENCE TO MERGE TEH TWO WOULD BE WUITE PHENOMENAL IN LAW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.120.8.82 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 May 2006.
Please don't shout. We can all hear you. Legis 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trading whilst insolvent
I have removed the "see also" reference to trading whilst insolvent there is so much clear blue water between a general duty of care in tort and the statutory duty in some jurisdictions for a director to stop trading when it is clear insolvency cannot be avoided, that you can't see land from the middle. Legis 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I guess people like me with less insight see farther.... in the ancient times of 3 months ago, the Trading whilst insolvent article had a link to Duty of care, so I thought there was a reason to link in the other direction. But that one is gone now, so I guess we're all happy campers in a consistent set of definitions... --Alvestrand 17:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
