United States of America, Plaintiff- appellee v. Hilton Hotels Corporation et al., Defendants, western International Hotels Company, Defendant- appellant
Critique of the case: section I
According to Epstein (2009), the united states vs. Hilton hotels company case puts a lot of focus on Hilton head corporation intrinsic actions. The corporation got sued for Sherman Act of 1980 violation that had been developed to prohibition exploitative practices among institutions and shield inherent opportunities of unrestricted trading amid various institutions. The Hilton head organization got sued for disrespecting the Sherman act of 1980 based on the institution's head of staff actions and minor workers in Portland, Oregon. Several organizations in the city, which was inclusive of supply chain companies' owners, operators of hotels, and restaurants, got together with the sole aim of attracting business conventions to the city. The group formed had been ford had to make some contributions to fund the project. In individuals made the contributions following the amounts that were predetermined. Hilton's head ruled that the organizations that participated would be given special treatment, and the groups that did not would be boycotted as a part of the agreement among the group. The violating of the Sherman Act and its moralities served as the basis for the case. The Sherman Act of 1980 was fashioned as a law of Antimonopoly related to the parties involved. Free, dissolute competition is protected as a trade regulation concerning the act.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The hotel's policy had a restriction that the purchasing agent would not involve himself in the boycott. However, the purchasing agent did not follow the rule and went ahead to threaten one of the suppliers with a lot of business unless it made contributions to the organization. There is testimony that the hotel manager gave that the agent of purchase had violated the rule by acting in contradictory means to the hotel's policy by breaking antitrust violations. The case issue was whether the defendant, Hilton hotel, was to be held responsible for the agent of purchase's actions, which contravened the first section of the act. However, the stories were within the scope of authority of the purchasing agent but contrary to the corporation's policy.
There was a ruling by the court that the organization was to be held responsible for the activities contradicting the 1980 Sherman act. It was apparent that the activities done by the purchasing manager were not intended for his benefits but to profit the corporation. Moreover, the purchasing agent dishonored the Sherman act due to his superiors' pressure to make the most of the organization's profits for the defendant hotel. Therefore, the outsiders viewed the purchasing agent as making the decision and acting on behalf of the hotel. Thus, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the hotel organization was found guilty of violating the Sherman antitrust law.
Summary Critique
The situation is an intricate illustration for more development regarding holding an organization accountable for its illegal actions. The endgame of jurisprudential strives to improve the restrictive results and paves the way for the encouragement of organizations to ensure that no errors are made in the management of their business's actions and its agents perform their activities with the laws of the company and diligence. However, in my personal view, I do not approve entirely with the court of law ruling to the degree that it found the establishment guilty of the policy and procedures of the antitrust laws of the organization. According to Greenberg & Brotman, (2014), the law court should consider considerations on the defendant corporation because of the meticulousness defense.
The court of law ruling was based on the superior respondent act, which is a principle that is commonly established by state courts and used and approved by some courts of the state. Tort law and agency are the principles from which the respondeat superior is derived. The code attaches liability of a criminal of an organization based on corporation's managers as long as the actions are performed in the path of employment and to benefit the corporation. The openness of the policy provides for the organization liability acts of lowest employees' levels and agents. The principle had widened its boundaries in the criminal law context, which resulted in inter-relationships close between civil and prohibited types of corporate accountability (Greenberg & Brotman, 2014). The key variances between criminal and civil accountability are that for criminal liability, the manager or worker should have done the crime, not for personal benefit but the organization's service.
Over time, many controversies have been linked with criminal liability, and many researchers agree that the respondeat superior principle is to some extent exaggerated. There is noticeable discordancy of the code with the criminal structure of justice. The code of act tends to weaken, alter and demean the system of criminal law. However, the principle's pertinency has proven to be problematic due to the evolving leading the principles of criminal law. In the civic setting, the proof load is put on the party that seems to have more information and knowledge of the issues and facts on the subject. According to criminal law, an individual is considered innocent unless proven otherwise by the court beyond any reasonable doubt. The respondeat superior's principle enacts the burden of proof on the organization to attest beyond any doubt that it didn't commit an offense through its agents' action, which makes it hard for the organization to make its defense. Moreover, the prosecutors have too much discretion because of the elusiveness and the scope of the corporate criminal liability code (Greenberg & Brotman, 2014).
Besides, organizations are not accorded with how they should avoid criminal liability, and courts do not have enough guidance on how the principle should be applied by workers in the workplace. The corporate criminal liability doctrine's broadness results in overcriminalization, which leads to the use of costly resources by American organizations on intrinsic policing strategies (Oded 2013). It leaves American organizations downside when it comes to competition in the internal business atmosphere even though it should not waive organizations from criminal responsibility.
According to Oded (2013), there exists strong indication that the burden of criminal liability brings any company any good. Organizations might be stimulated to hide their offensive actions to avoid the consequences and penalties that come up with criminal prosecution. Researchers have also argued that it is not practical to narrow the criminality of an organization. The impracticability comes when an organization is held responsible for organizations' crimes but does not intend to benefit the organization (Elias, 2015. A more effective principle should be put by organizations into action, which constitutes a dialogue between the businesses and the government. In the instance of unites states v Hilton hotels case, the offenses of criminal charge are put on the investors who did not have the power to follow every move made by creditors, executives, and employees.
As already establishes by the case of united states Hilton hotels, an organization has to assume responsibility for its employees' action so long as they act intending to maximize the profit of the company. Commercial criminal liability was authorized by the supreme court in 1909. The court ruled that an organization does not act independently but by the use of its officers, managers, and employees. Consequently, the purposes, motive, and intent of officers, agents, and employees represent the organization's intent, purposes, and motives. I agree that organizations should be held accountable for their agents and employees' actions and offenses (Elias, 2015). I disagree with the ruling of the case of united states v Hilton hotels to the level that it enforced criminal liability on the organization where the purchasing agent acted in contrast with the organization's procedures and policies. Therefore, a diligent approach helps enhance internal regulation, protecting the organization from workers who are negligent despite the organization's best efforts. Due diligence defense is the best way of gratifying an organization for its efforts to ensure submission.
Corporate criminal liability should have a limitation on the crimes that their employees commit within the performance, command, request, tolerance, or authority of the executive board of directors or management workers who make the decisions for the organization that echo the corporation's policy (Bradley, 2016). Presumptions should be made by the court that agents who have a high supervision authority should be accountable for the employment of employees who are diligent in their work to minimize the risks of the commission of offenses (Scarantino, 2018). Organizations should be excused from liabilities committed if they can prove that high managerial agents have committed the violations.
In the case of united states v Hilton hotels, the court should have considered whether the organization was accountable for the offenses committed by its purchasing agent. The approach serves to act as an essential incentive for organizations to ensure they regulate themselves internally (Rotimi, 2018). Organizations will have to pursue compliance programs that effectively minimize criminal activities and use such plans as a shield in case of a crime occurring.
The law court based its judgement on the principle respondeat superior. It emphasizes the attachment of responsibility on an organization for a crime committed by an employee or agent of the organization for the sole purpose of the organization's benefit. Whereas the court had the interests of promoting compliance and responsibility, it should have used an approach that was diligent in the consideration of the case.
References
Bradley, C. (2016). Corporate Intent and Corporate Crime: A Matter of Inference. Jotwell: J. Things We Like , 56. https://corp.jotwell.com/corporate-intent-and-corporate-crime-a-matter-of-inference/
Elias, R. A. (2015). The virtues of the due diligence defense for corporations in criminal cases: solving the problems of a corporation's vicarious liability for the crimes of its agents and employees. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol'y , 13 , 423. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2020/03/57-2-caring-about-corporate-due-care-why-criminal-respondeat-superior-liability-outreaches-its-justification.pdf
Greenberg, J. D., & Brotman, E. C. (2014). Strict vicarious criminal liability for corporations and corporate executives: Stretching the boundaries of criminalization. Am. Crim. L. Rev. , 51 , 79. https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/strict-vicarious-liability-for-corporations-and-corporate-executives-stretching-the-boundaries-of-criminalization.pdf
Rotimi, A. (2018). Impact of the uses of various technologies on the thermal performance and energy efficiency of UK hotel buildings: application to Hilton hotels in the UK (Doctoral dissertation, University of West London). https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB3740.pdf
Scarantino, F. (2018). Leveraged buyout in the hotel sector: the analysis of the Hilton Hotels acquisition made by the Blackstone group. https://orchidglobalmarkets.org/2020/09/03/hilton-lbo-by-blackstone/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/410/194/154934/
