She had argued for a broad interpretation, which imposed a duty to answer questions truthfully, and not to hide facts which could give a different complexion to a matter, but on subsequent thought she had revised her position.Although she still believed that one should be frank in answers to questions, this duty arose only where there was an obligation, based on a reasonable expectation, to make a full disclosure. There was no duty to reveal everything in response to a casual question by one who had no right to the information.

Summary

This quote emphasizes the importance of truthfulness and openness in communication while also acknowledging the need for discernment in disclosing information. Initially, the speaker argued for a broad interpretation of honesty, advocating for answering questions truthfully and providing all relevant facts. However, on further reflection, they revised their position and acknowledged that being frank in responses should be contingent upon a reasonable expectation or obligation to disclose fully. The quote highlights that there is no duty to reveal everything in response to casual inquiries from individuals who have no right to the information.

Topics