North Dakota Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification is a legal instruction that provides guidance to the jury in cases involving per se tying agreements. Tying agreements refer to situations where a seller requires a buyer to purchase one product or service (the tied product) as a condition for buying another product or service (the tying product). This specific instruction focuses on the defense of justification in relation to per se tying agreements, which means that the defendant may argue that their actions were justified and therefore should not be considered a violation of antitrust laws. The defense of justification can be raised when the defendant can demonstrate that their tying arrangement had valid business justifications, such as enhancing efficiency, improving quality, or reducing costs. The purpose of this instruction is to provide a framework for the jury to evaluate whether the defendant's actions were indeed justified or if they violated antitrust laws. The jury needs to carefully examine the evidence presented during the trial to determine if the defendant's justifications are reasonable and supported by the facts. Different types of North Dakota Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification may include: 1. Efficiency Defense: This defense argues that the tying arrangement was implemented to benefit overall economic efficiency. The defendant may claim that the tying agreement resulted in cost savings, improved production, or enhanced product quality. 2. Business Pro-Competitive Objective: This defense asserts that the defendant implemented the tying agreement to achieve legitimate business objectives that created pro-competitive effects in the market. For example, the defendant may argue that the tying arrangement stimulated innovation or encouraged fair competition. 3. Consumer Benefit Defense: This defense suggests that the tying agreement led to tangible benefits for consumers. The defendant may present evidence to demonstrate that the tying arrangement resulted in lower prices, improved access to products, or increased consumer choice. 4. Lack of Market Power: In some cases, the defendant may argue that they did not possess sufficient market power to enforce a tying arrangement. This defense asserts that the defendant's actions did not harm competition due to their limited market influence. It is important to note that these different types of defenses may vary in their application and relevance depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The jury will need to carefully evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if the defense of justification is valid and whether the defendant's actions should be considered a per se violation of antitrust laws.