United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

Portland businesses formed an association to attract conventions and asked members to make set financial contributions; Hilton Hotels (defendant) agreed to favor suppliers who paid and boycott those who did not. Hilton's president and its Portland hotel manager both testified that conditioning purchases on association contributions violated official corporate policy, but the Portland hotel's purchasing agent, though instructed not to participate in the boycott, ignored those instructions and threatened a supplier with lost business unless it paid the association. The jury was instructed that a corporation is responsible for its agents' acts within the scope of employment even against corporate policy, and it convicted Hilton of a Sherman Act violation.