New Mexico 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.

New Mexico Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification, refers to a specific legal instruction given to juries in New Mexico in cases involving per se violations of tying agreements, which are anti-competitive practices aimed at forcing customers to purchase one product or service in order to obtain another. This instruction provides guidance to jurors on the defense of justification that may be raised by the defendant. In cases involving per se violation tying agreements, where the defendant is accused of engaging in anti-competitive practices, this jury instruction informs jurors about the defense of justification available to the defendant. The defendant may argue that despite engaging in a tying agreement, their actions were justified due to valid business reasons or benefits to consumers. The instruction outlines the elements of this defense, highlighting that the defendant must prove the following: 1. The tying agreement resulted in some pro-competitive benefits or efficiencies. 2. The tying arrangement did not unfairly restrict competition in the relevant market. 3. The tying agreement was not coercive or anti-competitive in nature. 4. The defendant's actions were necessary to achieve these pro-competitive benefits or efficiencies. 5. These benefits and efficiencies outweighed any potential harm caused by the tying agreement. It is important to note that different cases may present variations in the application of this defense. However, the basic elements of the defense of justification remain consistent. Different types or variations of the New Mexico Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification may arise based on specific factual scenarios or legal arguments presented in court. Some potential variations include: 1. Pro-competitive benefits: The defendant may argue that their tying agreement created significant technological advancements, increased product quality, or resulted in lower prices for consumers. 2. Lack of anti-competitive intent: The defendant may claim that their actions were not aimed at restraining competition but rather driven by legitimate business considerations. 3. Industry standards or norms: The defendant may assert that the tying agreement was a common practice within the relevant industry, and therefore, their actions should be deemed justifiable. 4. Lack of market power: The defendant may argue that they lacked sufficient market power to impose anti-competitive effects through the tying agreement and, therefore, should not be held liable. These are just a few examples of potential variations or arguments that may arise within the context of the New Mexico Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense of Justification. The specific elements and arguments presented will depend on the facts of each individual case.