Rhode Island 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.

Rhode Island Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1, also known as the Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification, addresses a specific type of antitrust violation and explores potential defenses that the defendant may employ. This section of the jury instructions provides guidance on how the jury should consider the evidence and reach a verdict based on the facts of the case. A tying agreement occurs when a party imposes the condition of purchasing one product or service on the purchase of another unrelated product or service. In this context, per se violation refers to a violation that is deemed inherently anticompetitive, without the need for extensive analysis of market effects. The purpose of Rhode Island Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 is to clarify the defense of justification that a defendant may present when accused of a per se violation tying agreement. The defense revolves around proving that the defendant's actions were reasonable and necessary for legitimate business purposes, rather than engaging in anti-competitive behavior. While the content of this section might differ slightly depending on the specifics of the case, some relevant keywords and key points that would likely be included in Rhode Island Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 are: 1. Tying Agreement: A contractual or other arrangement where the sale of one product or service is conditioned upon the purchase of a second unrelated product or service. 2. Per Se Violation: A legal term used to describe an antitrust violation that is inherently illegal and does not require an extensive analysis of market effects to determine its illegality. 3. Defense of Justification: A defense strategy employed by the defendant to justify their actions as reasonable and necessary for legitimate business purposes, rather than engaging in anti-competitive behavior. 4. Legitimate Business Purpose: A valid reason supported by evidence that demonstrates the defendant's actions were undertaken to promote healthy competition and improve their business operations. 5. Reasonable and Necessary: Establishing that the tying agreement was necessary for the efficient functioning of the defendant's business and that there were no less restrictive alternative means available to achieve the desired outcome. 6. Anticompetitive Effects: The harmful effects on competition resulting from the defendant's actions, such as reducing consumer choice, creating barriers to entry for competitors, or harming market dynamics. 7. Jury's Consideration: Instructions regarding how the jury should evaluate the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense, the burden of proof, and the specific elements they need to analyze to determine the defendant's guilt or innocence. 8. Verdict Options: The potential verdict options available to the jury, such as finding the defendant guilty of a per se violation tying agreement or declaring the defendant not guilty if the defense of justification is successfully established. It is important to note that the specific terminology and content of Rhode Island Jury Instruction 3.3.2 Section 1 may vary based on the unique circumstances and legal precedents applicable to each case.