Hamburger v. Hamburger
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County
1995 WL 579679, 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 409 (1995)
- Written by John Caddell, JD
Facts
David Hamburger (defendant) began working full-time at Ace Wire and Burlap, Inc. (Ace), his family’s business, in 1984. Ace was controlled by David’s father, Joseph Hamburger (defendant), and David’s uncle, Jacob Hamburger (Ted) (plaintiff). Joseph and Ted had a strained relationship. David gained more and more responsibility at the company, ultimately becoming sales manager and general manager. With his help, Ace’s customer base and total sales doubled. Ted was resentful of David’s rise at the company and made several attempts to remove him, which failed due to Joseph’s intervention. Ted made it clear that if Joseph died before he did, David would be fired. Unhappy and unsure of his future, David met with one of Ace’s suppliers and discussed starting his own business to compete with Ace. The supplier loaned David $50,000 in early May 1993, and David promptly leased space for his new company. On May 13, 1993, David resigned from Ace without notice. He then incorporated his new business, hired Ace’s bookkeeper, and began calling Ace’s customers, a large number of whom followed David to the new company. Ted sued David and Joseph, alleging that David’s financing and lease agreements were made during David’s employment with Ace, in violation of his duty of loyalty. He also alleged that David obtained and used Ace’s customer list with Joseph’s assistance, in violation of their duty of loyalty to Ace.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fremont-Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.