Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): may be held personally liable for his or her tortious acts, even if committed within the scope of the agent’s employment with the principal, an agent is not liable for tortious interference with a contract of which his or her principal is a party.”) (citations omitted); Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“For the interference to be unjustified, the defendant must be a third party, external to the business relationship” or an agent who “acts solely with ulterior purposes, without an honest belief that his actions would benefit the employer, and the employee’s conduct concerning the contract or business relationship is not in the employer’s best interest.”); Babson Bros. Co. v. Allison, 337 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (<HOLDING>). This principle is fatal to Crossland’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation (B) holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation (C) holding that employee of one familyowned corporation who was assigned to terminate a contract of another corporation owned by the same family could not as a matter of law be held liable for tortious interference with the contract (D) holding that corporation and sole owner of corporation were separate legal entities and corporation was not party to contract signed by owner in individual capacity (E) holding individual who signed contract on behalf of a corporation is individually liable where he knew corporation was not incorporated at the time the contract was executed
Output (English): holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation