a right of recourse against Tom’s Foods in the event Dixie defaulted on the promissory notes; Thus, Tom’s Foods had ah economic interest in the relationship between STI and Dixie. See Waddell, supra. Second, Tom’s Foods was at all times acting as STI’s agent and, for purposes of repossessing Dixie’s vending machines, stood in the shoes of STI. STI had a legal right to repossess Dixie’s equipment, including its vending machines. As STI’s agent, Tom’s Foods had no more and no less right than STI had. As STI’s agent, Tom’s Foods was within its right to repossess the vending machines and to collect the moneys from those machines because STI would have been within its rights to do so. See Parsons, supra; Atlanta Market Center, supra; and Colonial Bank v. Patterson, 788 So.2d 134 (Ala.2000) (<HOLDING>). Third, Tom’s Foods cannot be a stranger to
holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding that a defendant could not be liable for tortious interference with a business relation where the defendant merely exercised its legal rights recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that the first element in a prima facie case of tortious interference with prospective business advantage is the existence of business expectancy holding that a patentee could sue for tortious interference along with its claims of infringement