The Court in Steinman V

The Court in Steinman v. Snarey found that Mr. Snarey devised and conducted a fraudulent scheme as an
Agent of Mutual Life. What was the result?

A) Only the agent was liable, because the action taken was dishonest, and therefore outside the scope of the agency relationship.
B) The doctrine of caveat emptor was applied.
C) As an agent with authority to enter into this general type of transaction, the company was vicariously liable for his conduct.
D) The company could only be liable if it were shown Mr. Snarey were an employee acting under the direction of a superior.
E) Neither the agent nor the company could be liable, because Mr. Snarey was only an agent, and the company had no actual knowledge.