In which scenario would a principal NOT be liable for an agent's intentional torts?

A principal would not be liable for an agent's intentional torts when the tort is driven by the agent's personal motivation. This is rooted in the principle of vicarious liability, which holds that a principal is responsible for the actions of an agent performed within the scope of their duties. If the agent acts for personal reasons—outside the interest of the principal or the business—the principal typically escapes liability because those actions do not further the business's interests.

For example, if an agent commits a tort while solely motivated by their own personal grievances or vendettas, the link between the agent's conduct and the employer's business is severed. In such scenarios, it becomes clear that the tortious act was not an execution of work duties or in line with the business's objectives, thus protecting the principal from liability.

In contrast, actions taken during business hours, on company premises, or while following the principal's instructions might establish a connection with the business operations, increasing the likelihood of liability for the principal.