“That if an independent contractor is engaged to solicit the bringing about of legal relations between the principal who engages the contractor and third parties, the principal will be held liable for slanders uttered to persuade the third party to make an agreement with the principal. It is a conclusion that depends directly upon the identification of the independent contractor as the principal’s agent (property so called) and the recognition that the conduct of which complaint is made was conduct undertaken in the course of, and for the purpose of, executing that agency”.
“the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant must fail as the mechanic was an independent contractor who did what he did for the benefit of the defendant and in attempted discharge of its contractual obligations. But he did what he did not as an employee of the respondent but as a principal pursuing his own business or as an employee of his own company pursuing its business”.
“The conclusion that the mechanic was an independent contractor is determinative of the issue that arises in the appeal and that accordingly the appeal must be dismissed with costs”.