To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




General Automotive Mfg. Co. v. Singer

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Corporations Keyed to Klein

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 19 Wis. 2d 528, 120 N.W.2d 659 (1963)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant, John Singer, engaged in business activity that directly competed with his employer, Plaintiff General Automotive Mfg. Co., and never notified Plaintiff of his activity.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An employee will be held to his or her contractual duty of loyalty, and their fiduciary duty would forbid them from engaging in activities that are competitive with their employer.

Facts. Defendant was well-respected in the field of work that he was engaged. Plaintiff hired Defendant, offering salary plus a 3% commission. Defendant helped Plaintiff’s business grow, but Defendant reasoned that Plaintiff’s shop was unable to fill some orders that required different machinery or larger capacity. Defendant did not notify Plaintiff of these orders and instead filled these orders himself through other machine shops, keeping all the profits from this sideline business.

Issue. The issue is whether Defendant’s sideline business violated his fiduciary duty to automotive.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following