West Virginia Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement: Defense of Justification is a legal instruction given to the jury in cases involving tying agreements. Tying agreements refer to situations where a seller forces a buyer to purchase one product or service as a condition for obtaining another product or service. This instruction focuses on the defense of justification that the defendant may present to argue against a per se violation of antitrust laws. The purpose of West Virginia Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is to guide the jury in understanding that although tying agreements are generally considered anticompetitive, they may sometimes be justified under certain circumstances. The instruction emphasizes that the defense of justification requires the defendant to prove that the tying arrangement was reasonable and necessary for a legitimate business purpose. Keywords: West Virginia, jury instruction, 3.3.2, Section 1, per se violation, tying agreement, defense of justification, types. Different types of West Virginia Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification may include: 1. Reasonable Business Purpose Defense: This type of defense argues that the tying arrangement was necessary for legitimate business reasons, such as improving efficiency, accommodating customer preferences, or ensuring quality control. The defendant must provide sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the tying agreement served a reasonable purpose that outweighed any potential harm to competition. 2. Lack of Market Power Defense: In some cases, a defendant may assert that they lacked the market power to engage in anticompetitive behavior. This defense claims that without sufficient market power, the defendant could not harm competition or consumers through the tying arrangement. The jury would need to assess the evidence and determine whether the defendant truly lacked the necessary power. 3. Pro competitive Benefits Defense: This type of defense focuses on demonstrating that the tying agreement produced pro competitive benefits that outweighed any anticompetitive effects. The defendant must show that the tying arrangement resulted in enhanced competition, technological advancements, increased consumer choice, or other positive outcomes that justified the agreement. 4. Superior Product Defense: In certain situations, a defendant may argue that the tied product or service is inherently superior to its competitors, and therefore, the tying agreement is justifiable. The defense aims to convince the jury that the consumers' interest is best served by offering the tied product/service along with the principal product/service. It is important to note that the availability and success of these defense arguments may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The jury instruction aims to help jurors understand the law related to tying agreements and enable them to make an informed decision based on the evidence presented during the trial.