Opinion ID: 10313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Self-Dealing

Text: 32 Agency law in Louisiana requires mandataries, like McDonald, to disgorge all undisclosed benefits that they receive in dealing secretly with either their employers/principals or their employers' competitors. Texana Oil & Refining Co. v. Belchic, 150 La. 88, 90 So. 522 (La.1922); Neal v. Daniels, 217 La. 679, 47 So.2d 44 (1950); ODECO Oil & Gas Co. v. Nunez, 532 So.2d 453 (La.Ct.App.1988); Robinson v. Commercial Cattle Co., 82 So.2d 108 (La.Ct.App.1955); McDonald v. O'Meara, 473 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2293, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973). The agent is not entitled to avail himself of any advantage that his position may give him to profit beyond the agreed compensation for his service. ODECO, 532 So.2d at 462 (quoting Texana, 90 So. at 527). The principal need not show damage when the agent benefits secretly because it would be difficult to prove such loss. Furthermore, the agent must account for any profit he thus received though it does not appear that the principal has suffered any actual loss by fraud or otherwise. Id. at 462-63. 33 We decline to differ with the district court's rejection of McDonald's argument that article 3006 applies because he acted with good intentions. First, the district court found that he did not act with good intentions; instead, he concealed his self-dealing because he knew his conduct was untoward with respect to his duties to C & B. Second, McDonald fails to cite authority suggesting that article 3006 overrides prevailing Louisiana agency law which does not permit an agent to escape liability for an intentional violation of his fiduciary duties. McDonald committed secret double-dealing in the ordinary course of C & B's business. The district court correctly found McDonald liable for breach of his fiduciary duty to C & B.