With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". foregoing cases are not sole-shareholder cases, they state the premise that the corporation is liable for the acts of one entrusted with the control of the company policy if the act was in the execution of a corporate function. Conversely, the corporation is not liable if the employee’s act is unrelated to any corporate purpose. Newer cases reflect the concept that by giving one powers of management, the corporation “must be held to have invested him with authority to make decisions for it, when necessary, in connection with the performance of those duties. When made, the [employee’s] judgment becomes the judgment of the defendant.” Panjwani v. Star Service & Petroleum Company, 395 SW2d 129, 132 (Mo 1965) (quoting Bova v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 316 SW2d 140, 144 (Mo App 1958) (<HOLDING>). Cornell v. Albuquerque Chemical Co., Inc., 92

A: holding corporation vicariously liable for assault on customer by assistant manager as customer was engaged in trying to settle a controversy concerning a portion of defendants business
B: holding that murder committed by customer was not foreseeable result of excessive sale of alcohol to customer
C: holding that the plaintiffs customer list was not a trade secret in part because there was no evidence that by the nature of the plaintiffs business extraordinary effort was involved in compiling the customer list
D: holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer
A.