New York 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 York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification The New York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in cases involving per se violation tying agreements. A tying agreement occurs when a seller obligates a buyer to purchase a second product or service as a condition for obtaining the desired product or service. In such cases, the court instructions aim to educate the jury on the justifications that may arise for engaging in a tying arrangement. The defense of justification for per se violation tying agreements encompasses several types, which are as follows: 1. Pro competitive Justification: This type of defense covers situations where the defendant argues that the tying agreement had legitimate pro competitive effects. The defendant may claim that the agreement created efficiencies, improved overall market functioning, or spurred innovation, thereby benefiting consumers. 2. Economic Efficiency: In this type of defense, the accused party asserts that the tying arrangement leads to more efficient use of resources, reducing costs, and ultimately benefiting consumers. The defendant may argue that by bundling products or services, economies of scale or scope are achieved, translating into better and more accessible goods or services for customers. 3. Business Justification: A business justification defense can be presented when the defendant provides evidence that the tying agreement was necessary to maintain or promote competition. The accused may argue that the arrangement was a response to existing market conditions or aggressive competition, thereby justifying the tie. 4. Product Integrity or Quality Control: This defense asserts that the tying arrangement was implemented to ensure consistent product quality or control over the customer experience. The accused party may argue that by controlling both the tied and tying products/services, they can guarantee a certain standard that benefits consumers. 5. Cost Recovery: Cost recovery defense comes into play when the defendant argues that the tied sale compensates for losses incurred while providing the tying product/service. The accused may assert that without the tying arrangement, they would be unable to recover costs, rendering the offering economically unviable. It is crucial for the jury to understand that these defenses are fact-specific and must be analyzed with regard to the particular circumstances of each case. The jury must weigh the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense to decide whether the accused party's tying agreement can be justified under the given circumstances. In summary, New York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 provides guidance to the jury in determining the defense of justification for per se violation tying agreements. The different types of defenses include pro competitive justification, economic efficiency, business justification, product integrity or quality control, and cost recovery. The jury's task is to carefully assess the evidence presented and determine if the tying arrangement was justified based on the specific circumstances of the case.

New York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification The New York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to the defense of justification in cases involving per se violation tying agreements. A tying agreement occurs when a seller obligates a buyer to purchase a second product or service as a condition for obtaining the desired product or service. In such cases, the court instructions aim to educate the jury on the justifications that may arise for engaging in a tying arrangement. The defense of justification for per se violation tying agreements encompasses several types, which are as follows: 1. Pro competitive Justification: This type of defense covers situations where the defendant argues that the tying agreement had legitimate pro competitive effects. The defendant may claim that the agreement created efficiencies, improved overall market functioning, or spurred innovation, thereby benefiting consumers. 2. Economic Efficiency: In this type of defense, the accused party asserts that the tying arrangement leads to more efficient use of resources, reducing costs, and ultimately benefiting consumers. The defendant may argue that by bundling products or services, economies of scale or scope are achieved, translating into better and more accessible goods or services for customers. 3. Business Justification: A business justification defense can be presented when the defendant provides evidence that the tying agreement was necessary to maintain or promote competition. The accused may argue that the arrangement was a response to existing market conditions or aggressive competition, thereby justifying the tie. 4. Product Integrity or Quality Control: This defense asserts that the tying arrangement was implemented to ensure consistent product quality or control over the customer experience. The accused party may argue that by controlling both the tied and tying products/services, they can guarantee a certain standard that benefits consumers. 5. Cost Recovery: Cost recovery defense comes into play when the defendant argues that the tied sale compensates for losses incurred while providing the tying product/service. The accused may assert that without the tying arrangement, they would be unable to recover costs, rendering the offering economically unviable. It is crucial for the jury to understand that these defenses are fact-specific and must be analyzed with regard to the particular circumstances of each case. The jury must weigh the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense to decide whether the accused party's tying agreement can be justified under the given circumstances. In summary, New York Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 provides guidance to the jury in determining the defense of justification for per se violation tying agreements. The different types of defenses include pro competitive justification, economic efficiency, business justification, product integrity or quality control, and cost recovery. The jury's task is to carefully assess the evidence presented and determine if the tying arrangement was justified based on the specific circumstances of the case.