Montana 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.

Montana Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification. Description: Montana Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 refers to the specific instruction provided to a jury in a court case related to a per se violation tying agreement. This section specifically focuses on the defense of justification that may be raised by the accused party. A tying agreement is a situation where a party conditions the sale of one product or service on the purchase of another product or service. Such agreements are generally considered anticompetitive unless the defendant can provide a legitimate defense of justification. Keywords: — Montana JurInstructionio— - 3.3.2 Section 1 — Per se violation tyinagreementen— - Defense of Justification — Tying agreemen— - Anticompetitive - Accused party — Legitimate defense Additional Types of Montana Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification: 1. Section 1 — Elements of a Per Se Violation Tying Agreement: This type of instruction would outline the elements that need to be proven to establish a per se violation tying agreement. It would typically cover aspects such as the existence of two separate products or services, an economic interest in the sale of both, and the conditioning of the sale of one product on the purchase of another. 2. Section 2 — Overview of the Defense of Justification: This type of instruction would provide an overview of the defense of justification and explain that the accused party must demonstrate a legitimate reason or justification for engaging in the tying agreement. It could highlight factors such as cost-efficiency, product compatibility, or consumer benefit as potential justifications. 3. Section 3 — Burden of Proof for Defense of Justification: This type of instruction would outline the burden of proof for the defense of justification. It would explain that the accused party has the responsibility to provide evidence supporting their claimed justification and that the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate that their actions were reasonable and justified. 4. Section 4 — Evaluation of Defense of Justification: This type of instruction would guide the jury on how to evaluate the defense of justification put forth by the accused party. It could include considerations such as weighing the potential anticompetitive effects against any claimed justifications and determining whether the accused party has met their burden of proof. 5. Section 5 — Possible Outcomes: This type of instruction would inform the jury about the potential outcomes based on their evaluation of the defense of justification. It could outline scenarios where the defense is accepted, leading to a finding of no violation, or scenarios where the defense is rejected, resulting in a finding of a per se violation tying agreement.