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.
Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification: In the legal context, a tying agreement refers to a situation where a seller forces a buyer to purchase one product or service as a condition for obtaining another product or service. This practice is generally deemed anticompetitive under the per se rule, meaning it is automatically deemed unlawful once proven, without requiring any further analysis. However, certain cases may allow the defending party to argue a defense of justification. 1. The Per Se Violation Tying Agreement: The key focus of Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is on per se violations related to tying agreements. Tying agreements can hinder fair competition, restrict consumer choice, and create monopolistic practices in the marketplace. Therefore, in typical scenarios where a tying agreement is established, it is considered illegal, and no further investigation is required. 2. Defense of Justification: The defense of justification allows the party accused of violating the per se rule to present arguments to demonstrate that their actions were justified and did not harm competition or consumer welfare. This defense requires evidence showing a legitimate business purpose, efficiency gains, or pro-competitive justifications for the tying agreement. If successfully proven, the tying agreement may be considered lawful. It is essential to note that the defense of justification is not available in all tying agreement cases. Its applicability often depends on the specific circumstances, evidence presented, and the judge's discretion. The jury instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is designed to guide the jury in understanding the violation of tying agreements and their potential defense. By presenting relevant evidence and arguments, the parties involved can present their case and seek a favorable outcome based on the defense of justification. It is crucial for the jury to carefully consider both sides of the argument, analyzing the evidence, witness statements, and legal precedents surrounding the case. This will help ensure a fair and just decision regarding the per se violation tying agreement and the applicability of the defense of justification, if raised. In summary, Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to per se violations involving tying agreements, which are typically deemed unlawful. The defense of justification provides an avenue for the accused party to present evidence supporting legitimate business purposes or pro-competitive justifications for the tying agreement. The availability and success of this defense depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence provided.
Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification: In the legal context, a tying agreement refers to a situation where a seller forces a buyer to purchase one product or service as a condition for obtaining another product or service. This practice is generally deemed anticompetitive under the per se rule, meaning it is automatically deemed unlawful once proven, without requiring any further analysis. However, certain cases may allow the defending party to argue a defense of justification. 1. The Per Se Violation Tying Agreement: The key focus of Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is on per se violations related to tying agreements. Tying agreements can hinder fair competition, restrict consumer choice, and create monopolistic practices in the marketplace. Therefore, in typical scenarios where a tying agreement is established, it is considered illegal, and no further investigation is required. 2. Defense of Justification: The defense of justification allows the party accused of violating the per se rule to present arguments to demonstrate that their actions were justified and did not harm competition or consumer welfare. This defense requires evidence showing a legitimate business purpose, efficiency gains, or pro-competitive justifications for the tying agreement. If successfully proven, the tying agreement may be considered lawful. It is essential to note that the defense of justification is not available in all tying agreement cases. Its applicability often depends on the specific circumstances, evidence presented, and the judge's discretion. The jury instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is designed to guide the jury in understanding the violation of tying agreements and their potential defense. By presenting relevant evidence and arguments, the parties involved can present their case and seek a favorable outcome based on the defense of justification. It is crucial for the jury to carefully consider both sides of the argument, analyzing the evidence, witness statements, and legal precedents surrounding the case. This will help ensure a fair and just decision regarding the per se violation tying agreement and the applicability of the defense of justification, if raised. In summary, Los Angeles California Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 pertains to per se violations involving tying agreements, which are typically deemed unlawful. The defense of justification provides an avenue for the accused party to present evidence supporting legitimate business purposes or pro-competitive justifications for the tying agreement. The availability and success of this defense depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the evidence provided.