CACI 3330 Affirmative Defense to Locality Discrimination Claim—Cost Justification

California Civil Jury Instructions CACI

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/nonbinary pronoun/its] price is justified by: [insert one or more of the following:]

[A difference in the [grade/quality/quantity] of the [product] [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] sold in the different locations;] [or]

[The difference in the cost of the [manufacture/sale/delivery] of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/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.]

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 (11th ed. 2017) Contracts, §§ 623–629
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]