Guam Jury Instruction - 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement - Defense Of Justification

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-3-3-2
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. The Guam Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 deals with the concept of Per Se Violation Tying Agreement and the Defense of Justification. In this instruction, the jury is informed about the specific legal standards that must be met for a tying agreement to be considered a per se violation, as well as the defense of justification that a defendant may assert. A per se violation tying agreement generally refers to an arrangement where a party uses its dominant market power in one product market to force customers to also purchase a different tied product. The instruction informs the jury that if certain conditions are met, the tying agreement is considered illegal without requiring further analysis. This helps simplify the evaluation of such cases. The keyword "per se violation" suggests that this type of tying agreement is deemed inherently anticompetitive, and the defendant's actions are considered as violating the law on their face, without considering potential justifications or economic analysis. However, the instruction also covers the Defense of Justification. This defense allows the defendant to argue that even if the tying agreement meets the conditions for a per se violation, their actions were justified due to legitimate business reasons or benefits to consumers. The keywords "defense of justification" emphasize the defendant's attempt to justify their actions. Different types or variations of this Guam Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 may include specific examples or case law references to illustrate the concept, as well as additional instructions regarding burden of proof, evidence requirements, or factors the jury should consider when determining if the defense of justification holds true. Overall, this instruction provides guidance to the jury regarding the legal standards for identifying per se violation tying agreements and the potential defense of justification that the defendant may assert during the trial.

The Guam Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 deals with the concept of Per Se Violation Tying Agreement and the Defense of Justification. In this instruction, the jury is informed about the specific legal standards that must be met for a tying agreement to be considered a per se violation, as well as the defense of justification that a defendant may assert. A per se violation tying agreement generally refers to an arrangement where a party uses its dominant market power in one product market to force customers to also purchase a different tied product. The instruction informs the jury that if certain conditions are met, the tying agreement is considered illegal without requiring further analysis. This helps simplify the evaluation of such cases. The keyword "per se violation" suggests that this type of tying agreement is deemed inherently anticompetitive, and the defendant's actions are considered as violating the law on their face, without considering potential justifications or economic analysis. However, the instruction also covers the Defense of Justification. This defense allows the defendant to argue that even if the tying agreement meets the conditions for a per se violation, their actions were justified due to legitimate business reasons or benefits to consumers. The keywords "defense of justification" emphasize the defendant's attempt to justify their actions. Different types or variations of this Guam Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 may include specific examples or case law references to illustrate the concept, as well as additional instructions regarding burden of proof, evidence requirements, or factors the jury should consider when determining if the defense of justification holds true. Overall, this instruction provides guidance to the jury regarding the legal standards for identifying per se violation tying agreements and the potential defense of justification that the defendant may assert during the trial.