Oregon 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.

Oregon Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification is a legal instruction that pertains to cases involving allegations of per se violation tying agreements. It guides the jury on how to determine whether the defendant engaged in an illegal tying arrangement and the potential defenses available to the defendant. A per se violation tying agreement refers to a situation where a party with market power requires buyers to purchase a particular product or service as a condition for purchasing another desired product or service. This type of arrangement is considered anticompetitive under certain circumstances. The purpose of Oregon Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1 is to provide jurors with guidance on evaluating the defendant's actions in light of the legal elements required to establish a per se violation tying agreement. It outlines the necessary conditions that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in such a violation to occur. The defense of justification is a significant aspect of this instruction. It allows the defendant to present evidence and arguments to support a defense against the allegations of an illegal tying agreement. This defense typically involves demonstrating that the defendant had a valid business justification for the arrangement and that it did not harm competition in the relevant market. Some possible types or variations of Oregon Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification may include: 1. Proving lack of market power: This type of defense focuses on demonstrating that the defendant did not possess substantial market power in the relevant market, making it unlikely that their actions could harm competition. 2. Showing pro competitive justifications: Defendants may argue that the tying arrangement had valid pro competitive justifications, such as achieving economies of scale, improving product quality, or enhancing consumer choice. 3. Limited market impact: This defense aims to establish that the defendant's tying agreement did not have a significant impact on competition in the relevant market, thus negating the per se violation claim. 4. Ancillary restraints defense: This defense asserts that the tying arrangement is an ancillary restraint that is reasonably necessary for the functioning of a broader legitimate transaction or agreement. It is essential to consult the specific Oregon Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification in each case to understand the precise language and elements involved. Legal professionals can further analyze the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the most relevant defense strategies based on its unique characteristics.