California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3330. Affirmative Defense to Locality Discrimination Claim - Cost Justification

Download PDF
3330.Affirmative Defense to Locality Discrimination Claim—Cost
Justification
[Name of defendant] claims that any locality discrimination proven by
[name of plaintiff] is within the law. To succeed, [name of defendant] must
prove that the difference in [his/her/its] price is justified by: [insert one
or more of the following:]
[A difference in the [grade/quality/quantity] of the [product] [he/she/
it] sold in the different locations;] [or]
[The difference in the cost of the [manufacture/sale/delivery] of [his/
her/its] [product] in the different locations;] [or]
[A difference in the actual cost of transportation from the place the
[product] was [produced/manufactured/shipped] to the place where
the [product] was sold.]
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This defense applies to locality discrimination only.
Sources and Authority
• Costs Justification for Locality Discrimination. Business and Professions Code
section 17041.
• “We . . . conclude that appellants are not required to negative the exception for
differences in grade or other enumerated factors found in section 17041, and
deem the complaint sufficient to withstand demurrer without such allegations.”
(G.H.I.I. v. Mts, Inc. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 256, 273 [195 Cal.Rptr. 211],
internal citations and footnote omitted.)
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 609–615
3 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 40, Fraud and Deceit and Other Business Torts,
§ 40.153 (Matthew Bender)
49 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 565, Unfair Competition,
§ 565.53 (Matthew Bender)
23 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 235, Unfair Competition, § 235.20
(Matthew Bender)
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Unfair Competition and Business
Torts, Ch. 5, Antitrust, 5.46[2], 5.100[2]
469
0023