Illinois 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. Illinois Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification The Illinois Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in a per se violation tying agreement case. A tying agreement refers to a situation where an individual or entity requires the purchase of one good or service as a condition for purchasing another good or service. This instruction is crucial in helping the jury understand the defense arguments put forth by the accused. When facing a per se violation tying agreement charge, the defense may present the defense of justification. The defense of justification aims to demonstrate that the accused had valid reasons for entering into the tying agreement and that it did not constitute an anti-competitive practice. There are different types of defense of justification arguments that can be presented in a per se violation tying agreement case: 1. Efficiency Defense: This defense argument focuses on demonstrating that the tying agreement had legitimate efficiency and pro-competitive justifications. The defense may argue that the tying arrangement resulted in cost savings, improved product quality, enhanced services, or technological advancements that benefited consumers and the market as a whole. 2. Economics-Based Defense: This defense approach highlights the economic benefits and rationality behind the tying agreement. The defense may present evidence showing that the tie-in arrangement was economically sound, increased competition, expanded consumer choices, or fostered innovation. 3. Business Necessity Defense: This defense argument asserts that the tying agreement was necessary for valid business reasons. The defense may attempt to prove that the agreement was essential for maintaining market position, securing investments, protecting intellectual property rights, preventing free-riding, or ensuring compatibility between different products or services. 4. Lack of Anticompetitive Effect: Another defense strategy is to argue that the tying agreement did not have an anti-competitive effect on the market. The defense may present evidence supporting the notion that the alleged harm to competition is minimal, and that the agreement did not significantly impact consumer choice, pricing, or market access. It is important to note that while these different defense of justification arguments can be presented in a per se violation tying agreement case, the success of each argument relies on the specific circumstances, evidence, and interpretation of the law. The jury's role is to weigh the validity of these defenses and determine whether the accused's actions were justified or an unfair violation of competition law.

Illinois Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification The Illinois Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in a per se violation tying agreement case. A tying agreement refers to a situation where an individual or entity requires the purchase of one good or service as a condition for purchasing another good or service. This instruction is crucial in helping the jury understand the defense arguments put forth by the accused. When facing a per se violation tying agreement charge, the defense may present the defense of justification. The defense of justification aims to demonstrate that the accused had valid reasons for entering into the tying agreement and that it did not constitute an anti-competitive practice. There are different types of defense of justification arguments that can be presented in a per se violation tying agreement case: 1. Efficiency Defense: This defense argument focuses on demonstrating that the tying agreement had legitimate efficiency and pro-competitive justifications. The defense may argue that the tying arrangement resulted in cost savings, improved product quality, enhanced services, or technological advancements that benefited consumers and the market as a whole. 2. Economics-Based Defense: This defense approach highlights the economic benefits and rationality behind the tying agreement. The defense may present evidence showing that the tie-in arrangement was economically sound, increased competition, expanded consumer choices, or fostered innovation. 3. Business Necessity Defense: This defense argument asserts that the tying agreement was necessary for valid business reasons. The defense may attempt to prove that the agreement was essential for maintaining market position, securing investments, protecting intellectual property rights, preventing free-riding, or ensuring compatibility between different products or services. 4. Lack of Anticompetitive Effect: Another defense strategy is to argue that the tying agreement did not have an anti-competitive effect on the market. The defense may present evidence supporting the notion that the alleged harm to competition is minimal, and that the agreement did not significantly impact consumer choice, pricing, or market access. It is important to note that while these different defense of justification arguments can be presented in a per se violation tying agreement case, the success of each argument relies on the specific circumstances, evidence, and interpretation of the law. The jury's role is to weigh the validity of these defenses and determine whether the accused's actions were justified or an unfair violation of competition law.