Posted by Lotg on November 26, 2004
In Reply to: Re: Um ... prudent person, now posted by Brian from Shawnee on November 26, 2004
: : : : : There is in US jurisprudence a 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used to determine if an individual should have forseen the consequences of an action. Is this a US concept, or is it taken from English common law or prior law in the UK?
: : : : it is derived from English 'common law'. there are variations, bu the most famous is "the man on the Clapham omnibus" - a mythical person who peceives the relevent facts and has an opinion.
: : : : the 'reasonable and prudent man' is a variation and the requirement for prudence is probably a reference to the reasonable investor/business person. it sounds like a term from 'due diligence' in the performance of a duty.
: : : : 'reasonableness' is an amazingly big legal topic and you can find people who have devoted their careers to defining it.
: : : : I once had a case due to be heard in the House of Lords on the question of the meaning of the word 'likely'. Before trial, a piece of legislation was passed that made defining the meaning unnecessary, so funding was pulled.
: : : : Shame that.
: : : : Lewis
: : : Lewis: Thanks and a happy holiday season to you and yours. I've spent many happy times in the Stratford and Coventry area around Christmas.
: : Over the past few years in the US, the term has morphed into the "prudent person" rule.
: I heard about a case a few years ago where a woman tried to negate a contract she'd signed, citing a "reasonable woman" standard that differed significantly from the "reasonable man" standard. The jury didn't buy it.
Well that's just ridiculous. We all know that a woman's sense of reason is completely different to that of a man! ---GODDESS