the agent.” Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422, 424 n. 5 (Fla.l990)(citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 (1957)); see also Gillet, 913 So.2d at 620 (quoting Gold-schmidt, 571 So.2d at 424 n. 5). In the instant case, there is no doubt that Mr. Cisneros was, at one point, employed by FNC. However, the undisputed testimony showed that, at the time of the accident, the term had ended; FNC had not authorized this excursion; and that this excursion in no way benefited FNC. In fact, Mrs. Fernandez’s testimony reflects that they were taking this excursion because the course had ended. Therefore, based upon these undisputed facts, the plaintiffs cannot establish that Mr. Cisneros was FNC’s actual agent on the day of the accident. Next, we address the issue of apparent (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(<HOLDING>); Reina v. Gingerale Corp., 472 So.2d 530, 531
holding that under florida law a court hearing a case on a motion for a summary judgment can only consider those issues raised by the pleadings holding that at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that on a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion