To help attract convention business to the city, a group of hotels, restaurants, and various other businesses in Portland, Oregon, formed an association. The association was funded by contributions. To provide incentives for contributions to the association, its members agreed to stop doing or curtail doing business with those who did not contribute. As a part of this effort, the Portland Hilton Hotel’s purchasing agent threatened a Hilton supplier with the loss of the hotel’s business unless such a contribution was forthcoming. Such activities and the agreement behind them are criminal violations of the federal antitrust laws. As a result, the federal government charged Hilton accordingly and a guilty verdict was returned at the trial. Hilton appealed, as it had been shown in court that the manager and assistant manager of the hotel had, on at least two occasions, told the purchasing agent not to participate in the boycott. He was instead to follow corporate policy and purchase supplies only on the basis of price, quality, and service. Should the decision be reversed on appeal given the employee’s actions were clearly against corporate policy and directions by corporate executives? (United States v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, 467 F.2d 1000)