The difficulty with this case is that the parties, their counsel, and the trial court apparently never realized that the case involved three separate and distinct transactions involving different parties. Throughout the pleadings, the stipulations, the trial and the appeal, the charges and offsets have been treated as flowing from one general transaction rather than from distinct transactions. The lease involved a contract between Vito and the plaintiffs to which John and the corporation were strangers. So also with the bank loan. The acquisition, operation and reacquisition of the restaurant business was a separate transaction between the corporation and the plaintiffs to which Vito and John were strangers in the absence of evidence authorizing a piercing of the corporate veil. Such evidence was not adduced and the court by its judgment on Count II did not find liability by Vito and John for the corporation’s activities. We will review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment on the basis of the evidence adduced as applied to the legally separate transactions involved.