In the Birge-Forbes Company v. Heye case of 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for exclusive selling rights violated antitrust laws. The Birge-Forbes Company had entered into an agreement with George G. Heye that granted them sole selling rights to his wallpaper designs in certain territories, and they sought to enforce this agreement when it appeared that he might be planning on breaching it by allowing another company to sell his designs within their territory. The court ruled in favor of Heye, stating that such contracts did not violate antitrust laws as long as they were reasonable and did not unduly restrict competition or trade. They found no evidence suggesting that this particular contract would have such effects; rather, it seemed designed simply to protect both parties' interests - ensuring a steady market for Heye's products while also guaranteeing Birge-Forbes a reliable supply source.

In the dissenting opinion for Birge-Forbes Company v. Heye, the justice argued that there was no legal basis to hold a corporation liable for damages caused by an employee's actions outside of their employment duties. The case involved a company driver who had injured someone while using a company vehicle for personal reasons. The majority ruled in favor of the plaintiff, arguing that since the driver was allowed to use the car freely and without restriction, it could be inferred that he was acting within his scope of employment at all times. However, according to this dissenting view, such inference is not legally sound as it contradicts established principles regarding employer liability which state employers are only responsible when employees act within their job responsibilities or with express permission from superiors. This interpretation would limit corporate responsibility and protect businesses from being held accountable for employees' unauthorized actions.