Missouri 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.

Missouri Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification is a legal instruction provided to a jury in Missouri. It pertains to cases involving tying agreements that are considered per se violations of antitrust laws. This instruction explains the defense of justification that can be used by the defendant to justify or excuse their conduct in such cases. A tying agreement is a business practice in which a seller conditions the sale of a product or service (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a different product or service (the "tied" product). Such agreements can be deemed anticompetitive if they restrain trade or harm competition. Per se violations imply that the agreement is inherently illegal and does not require any further analysis of its actual effect on competition. Section 1 of Missouri Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 focuses specifically on the defense of justification in tying agreement cases. It outlines the legal arguments a defendant can present to justify their conduct and demonstrate that there were valid business justifications or legitimate pro-competitive purposes behind the tying arrangement. This defense aims to show that the defendant's actions were not anticompetitive, even if the tying agreement might be deemed per se illegal. Different types of Missouri Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The instruction might address various types of justifications that the defendant could use, such as: 1. Efficiency and cost-saving: The defendant can argue that the tying arrangement leads to increased efficiency, cost-saving benefits, or economies of scale. They may present evidence to prove that the tied product is necessary to ensure the optimal functioning or performance of the tying product. 2. Product integrity or quality control: The defendant can assert that the tying arrangement is essential to maintain product integrity, quality control, or safety. They may argue that the tied product's integration with the tying product improves overall performance or customer experience. 3. Research and development: The defendant may claim that the tying agreement facilitates research and development activities, innovation, or investment in new technologies. They might present evidence to demonstrate that the tied product's sales revenue supports ongoing R&D efforts. 4. Marketing and promotion: The defendant could assert that the tying agreement is justified as it contributes to marketing and promotion efforts for both the tying and tied products. They may provide evidence showing that the two products are inherently related, and bundling them effectively enhances sales and consumer awareness. It's essential to note that the availability and applicability of these justifications might vary depending on the specific context and evidence presented in each case. The jury will carefully consider the arguments and evidence presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and then determine if the defense of justification applies, ultimately influencing the verdict.