CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
FITZGERALD, J.:¶ 1 Insofar as the majority reverses the portion of the judgment finding Appellant (“Singh”) liable under the participation theory, I respectfully dissent. Insofar as the majority concludes that Mico Petro and Heating Oil, LLC is responsible, I concur.
¶ 2 The majority concludes that the evidence was insufficient “to establish any kind of ‘conversion’ or other illegal act” on Singh’s part. Majority Op. at 856. I disagree. Singh testified that he was the only member of Mico Petro. Id. at 22. Singh is the sole shareholder of Mico Pe-tro. Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusion of Law, and Verdict (“Verdict”), 7/23/07, at 1. He was responsible for paying the bills. Id. at 23. He testified that after the delivery of the petroleum products, the products were then sold. Id. at 24.
¶ 3 The trial court found, inter alia, “that a conversion of the petroleum products delivered to [Appellants] had taken place.” Trial Ct. Op., 11/23/07, at 4. The trial court found that “the written confirmation ... embodied] the terms agreed upon including the imposition of finance charges on outstanding balances after 30 days.” Id. at 6. “[Appellee] has established by a preponderance of the evidence that [Appellants] are liable to it for the tort of conversion and against Singh under the participation theory.” Id. at 7.
¶ 4 Singh testified as follows:
Q: Mr. Singh, Mico Petro — I’m just going to refer to it as Mico Petro for this purpose — is an LLC, correct.
A: Yes.
Q: And how long has that LLC been in business?
A: It’s from 2003, July of 2003.
Q: And what is the function of Mico Petro?
A: We have gas stations and a heating oil business.
Q: So the purpose of Mico Petro is to buy and sell petroleum products?
A: Yes.
Q: And you are the only member of Mico Petro, correct?
A: Yes.
*859Q: What are your responsibilities as the sole member?
A: Like I was managing the business.
Q: Are you responsible for the day-today management of the business?
A: No.
Q: You’re not?
A: I had an employee that was doing day-to-day business.
Q: Who was that employee?
A: His name was Nelson.
Q: Were you responsible for writing checks?
A: Yes, I was, but he was writing all the checks.
Q: Under your direction?
A: Under my direction.
* * *
Q: Paying bills. Was he responsible for paying bills?
A: No. I was responsible for paying the bills.
* * *
Q: And in the past, you had contacted Parker Oil Company to order petroleum products; isn’t that correct?
A: Yes.
N.T., 7/3/07, at 22-24.
¶ 5 Where the corporate officer, such as Singh, participates in the tortious conduct, he can be held liable under a participation theory. In Wicks v. Milzoco Builders, Inc., 503 Pa. 614, 470 A.2d 86 (1983), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained the participation theory of individual liability:
There is a distinction between liability for individual participation in a wrongful act and an individual’s responsibility for any liability-creating act performed behind the veil of a sham corporation. Where the court pierces the corporate veil, the owner is liable because the corporation is not a bona fide independent entity; therefore, its acts are truly his. Under the participation theory, the court imposes liability on the individual as an actor rather than as an owner. Such liability is not predicated on a finding that the corporation is a sham and a mere alter ego of the individual corporate officer. Instead, liability attaches where the record establishes the individual’s participation in the tortious activity-
Id. at 621, 470 A.2d at 89-90 (footnote and citation omitted). “Wicks expressly confirmed that Pennsylvania law recognizes the participation theory as a basis of liability.” Brindley v. Woodland Village Restaurant, Inc., 438 Pa.Super. 385, 652 A.2d 865, 868 (1995).
¶ 6 “To impose liability on a corporate officer pursuant to the participation theory, a plaintiff must establish that the corporate officer engaged in misfeasance, ie., ‘the improper performance of an act.’” Shay v. Flight C Helicopter Servs., Inc., 822 A.2d 1, 17 (Pa.Super.2003) (citation omitted). As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:
The general, if not universal, rule is that an officer of a corporation who takes part in the commission of a tort by the corporation is personally liable therefor; but that an officer of a corporation who takes no part in the commission of the tort committed by the corporation is not personally liable to third persons for such a tort, nor for the acts of other agents, officers or employees of the corporation in committing it, unless he specifically directed the particular act to be done or participated, or cooperated therein.
Wicks, 503 Pa. at 621-22, 470 A.2d at 90; accord Loeffler v. McShane, 372 Pa.Super. 442, 539 A.2d 876, 878 (1988).
*860¶ 7 Once it is determined that Singh could be liable under a participation theory, the court must examine the record in order to determine whether it establishes that Singh participated in the tortious activity of conversion. Wicks, 503 Pa. at 621, 470 A.2d at 90.
Conversion is the deprivation of another’s right of property in, or use or possession of, a chattel, without the owner’s consent and without lawful justification. Conversion can result only from an act intended to affect chattel. Specific intent is not required, however, but rather an intent to exercise dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiffs rights establishes the tort. Money may be the subject of conversion.
Shonberger v. Oswell, 365 Pa.Super. 481, 530 A.2d 112, 114 (1987) (citation omitted).
¶ 8 Instantly, Singh testified that he had contacted Appellee to order petroleum products and that he was responsible for paying the bills. N.T., 7/3/07, at 23-24. He ordered the petroleum and after the delivery of the petroleum, it was then sold. Id. at 24. Singh gave a gas attendant the authority to sign his name whenever a delivery was received. Id. at 25. A signature stamp, with Singh’s signature, was used with his permission. Id. The parties stipulated that the total of the open invoices was $51,667.91, not including the bad check charges and the finance charges. Id. at 27-28.
¶ 9 Singh testified that the product delivered by Parker Oil was sold and that the LLC used the proceeds of the sale. Id. at 24. He admitted that he was the sole member of the LLC and the only person who made decisions for the LLC. Id. at 23. He testified that he was responsible for paying the bills. Id. Singh concedes that the products were received and resold and that there is principal due for the products. Id. at 24, 27. Accordingly, I agree with the trial court that Appellants were liable to Parker Oil for the tort of conversion and against Singh under the participation theory. See Wicks, supra; Shonberger, supra.
¶ 10 Furthermore, the trial court found that Singh was liable for the finance and bad check charges. I agree. The trial court rejected Appellants’ argument that Parker Oil was attempting to impose finance charges in the absence of a written agreement. The court found 13 Pa.C.S. § 2207 to be dispositive of the issue. Trial Ct. Op., 11/13/07, at 5. Section 2207 provides as follows:
(a) General rule. — A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
(b) Effect on contract. — The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
(1) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;
(2) they materially alter it; or
(3) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.
13 Pa.C.S. § 2207.
¶ 11 Petro and Singh contend that the trial court erred in calculating interest on the unpaid balance in the amount of 1 %%. They aver that since there was no written agreement for the imposition of the finance charge, one cannot be imposed.
*861¶ 12 At the time of trial, Parker Oil testified as follows:
Q: When you deliver oil or any type of product to a customer, are they provided with anything?
A: At the point of delivery, they’re provided with a delivery invoice that they sign for showing the gallons and the product, and then on a monthly basis they receive a statement from our office.
* * *
Q: I’m going to show you what has been marked as Plaintiffs Exhibits 1 and 2. Could you identify those, please? A: Yes. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1 is the delivery invoice that’s provided at the point of delivery. Exhibit 2 is the monthly statement that is mailed to the customer showing the outstanding invoices and any other charges that have incurred.
Q: Okay. And these invoice slips are given to the customer each and every time the delivery is made?
A: Yes, they are.
[[Image here]]
Q: And when this slip is given, a copy of this is given to your client, correct?
A: Yes. A copy is given, and a copy is brought back to our office.
Q: What happens when the copy is brought back to the office?
A: When the copy comes back to our office, it’s entered into our system, our computer, which then puts it on that account.
Q: So each client has their own separate account with a system on the computer?
A: That is correct.
Q: Okay. And you’ve testified that Plaintiffs Exhibit #2 is the statement that is then subsequently sent out to the client?
A: That’s the monthly statement that is mailed to the customer.
* * *
Q: Okay. And does Parker Oil impose any type of penalty for late or nonpayments?
A: After 30 days on an outstanding balance is assessed a 1 and & percent per month service charge.
Q: And is the customer made aware of this penalty?
A: The delivery invoice that he receives and signs for at the time of delivery states it. It’s specifically stated on the bottom of that invoice. It is also on the monthly statement that he’s mailed.
Q: So the terms of penalty are listed on the slip that is signed by your customer?
A: That is correct.
N.T., 7/3/07, at 7-10.
¶ 13 The trial court found this evidence credible. The invoices and the monthly statements clearly indicate a finance charge of 1$% for late payment. Furthermore, this Court opined in Herzog Oil Field Serv., Inc. v. Otto Torpedo Co., 391 Pa.Super. 133, 570 A.2d 549 (1990):
We have little difficulty in determining that the interest charge term is not one that materially alters the agreement. The trial court reached that conclusion, and comment 5 to § 2207 states, as an example of a term that does not materially alter the contract, “a clause providing for interest on overdue invoices ... where they are within the range of trade practiceFurthermore, it is common in commercial circles, including transactions with non-merchants, for balances to be subjected to interest charges. As such, and since no objec*862tion to the term was lodged, we find that the trial court erred in not allowing appellant interest as provided in the written confirmation. Under operation of § 2207 the term must be considered as part of the agreement.
Id. at 551 (citation omitted).
¶ 14 Singh admitted that there were approximately fifty-five checks that were returned for insufficient funds. N.T., 7/3/07, at 25. Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that Appellants were liable to Parker Oil for the costs of the returned check fees in the amount of $1,650.00. See Verdict, 7/23/07, at 2.
¶ 15 I discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence of record established that there was a conversion by Singh and that he was personally liable based upon a participation theory. See Wicks, supra; Shonberger, supra. I would therefore affirm the order of the trial court. See Skurnowicz, supra.