Can a principal be held liable for the actions of agents that are not intended to benefit the principal?

In the context of agency law, a principal is generally held liable for the actions of their agents when those actions are taken within the scope of the agent's authority and are intended to benefit the principal. If an agent acts outside the scope of their authority or engages in conduct that is not intended to benefit the principal, the principal typically will not be held liable for those actions.

This is because the relationship between a principal and an agent is based on the premise that the agent is acting on behalf of the principal with the expectation of furthering the principal's interests. If the agent engages in actions that do not align with this expectation—particularly actions that are self-serving or unrelated to the principal's objectives—the principal is not responsible for the outcomes of those actions.

The option stating that a principal can never be liable when the actions are not intended to benefit them reflects this foundational principle of agency law. However, it's important to note that there could be specific situations, such as when a tort is involved and the agent's action causes harm, where liability might ensue under different legal doctrines.