Michigan 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.

Michigan Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1: Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification Keywords: Michigan Jury Instruction, 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement, Defense Of Justification In Michigan, Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 outlines the elements of a Per Se Violation Tying Agreement and the available Defense of Justification. This instruction is relevant in cases where a tying agreement between two parties is alleged to violate antitrust laws. A tying agreement occurs when a seller conditions the sale of one product (the tying product) upon the purchase of another product (the tied product). This practice may be considered anti-competitive as it forces consumers to buy unwanted or unnecessary products in order to obtain the desired product, limiting consumer choice and competition in the marketplace. Michigan Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 identifies two types of tying agreements in which a Per Se Violation may exist: 1. Tying agreement with Market Power: This occurs when the defendant has significant market power in the tying product market, allowing them to coerce consumers into buying the tied product. The instruction explains that the existence of market power may be determined by factors such as market share, barriers to entry, and the existence of substitutes. 2. Tying agreement without Market Power: In this scenario, the defendant does not possess significant market power but engages in anti-competitive tying practices regardless. The instruction clarifies that although a Per Se Violation is less likely in these cases, the defense of justification may still be applicable. The Defense of Justification, as mentioned in Michigan Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1, provides a potential defense for defendants accused of a Per Se Violation Tying Agreement. This defense can be used when the defendant can show a legitimate business reason for their tying practices, which outweigh the anti-competitive effects. The defendant must establish that their actions were reasonable and necessary for the overall efficiency of their business or the market. Examples of legitimate justifications may include cost savings, product compatibility, quality control, or innovation. However, the burden of proving a legitimate justification lies with the defendant, and they must provide evidence to support their claims. It is important to note that Michigan Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 provides a guideline for understanding the Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification legal principles. However, its application and interpretation may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, legal professionals should consult relevant case law and seek expert advice to appropriately apply this instruction in their legal arguments.