New Jersey 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.

New Jersey Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification In New Jersey, a tying agreement is considered a violation of antitrust laws when it involves a seller requiring buyers to purchase one product as a condition for obtaining another product or service. However, there are instances where a tying agreement may be justified under certain circumstances. The New Jersey Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 focuses on the defense of justification in cases involving per se violation of tying agreements. This instruction guides the jury in determining whether the defendant's actions can be justified despite the presence of a tying agreement. It is important to note that this section of the instruction is specifically related to per se violations of tying agreements, which means that the agreement itself is deemed inherently anticompetitive and illegal. The defense of justification allows the defendant to provide evidence and arguments to justify their actions and potentially mitigate the consequences of the alleged violation. Different types of defense of justification in the context of New Jersey Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement may include: 1. Pro-competitive benefits: The defendant may argue that the tying agreement resulted in pro-competitive benefits such as improved efficiency, better availability of products or services, increased innovation, or lowered costs. Providing evidence to support these claims can help convince the jury that the agreement was necessary for legitimate business reasons. 2. Lack of market power: The defense may contend that the defendant lacked sufficient market power to enforce the tying agreement. If it can be proven that the defendant did not have significant control over the relevant market, it may justify their actions by suggesting that the agreement did not restrict competition significantly. 3. Voluntary acceptance of the tied product: The defendant might argue that customers willingly accepted the tied product and that there was no coercion or anti-competitive behavior involved. This defense asserts that customers were free to choose whether to purchase the tied product and that the agreement did not impede competition in any significant manner. 4. Economies of scale: The defense may claim that the tying agreement allowed for economies of scale, resulting in cost savings or increased efficiency. By showing that the agreement benefited the defendant's operations without causing undue harm to competition, this defense aims to justify the actions taken. Ultimately, the New Jersey Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification provides a framework for the jury to carefully consider the circumstances and arguments put forth by the defendant in cases involving per se violations of tying agreements. The goal is to ensure that the defendant has an opportunity to present evidence and legal arguments that justify their actions despite the existence of an inherently anticompetitive tying agreement.