Talk:Duty of care: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Corrected spelling error: "cultural" |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* 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. --[[User:PullUpYourSocks|PullUpYourSocks]] 16:49, 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. --[[User:PullUpYourSocks|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. --[[User:PeterVog|PeterVog]] 23:19, 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. --[[User:PeterVog|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. [[User:David91|David91]] 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:15, 3 March 2006
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. BDAbramson 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)