Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 47


     
     1        third, whether the plaintiffs have proved if something
              they have proved is untrue, whether we knew it to be
     2        untrue.  The fact that we may not prove a particular point
              cannot, therefore, mean that we knew it was untrue.
     3
              The plaintiffs, first, will have to demonstrate that we
     4        knew something was untrue, that something is untrue, not
              proven.  They will have to demonstrate the fact sheet line
     5        by line, or whatever, is not true.  Then they have to
              demonstrate that we know it was untrue in order to succeed
     6        on the counterclaim, but they are under an obligation to
              do that, and that we did give them an option of
     7        apologising and withdrawing the counterclaim.
 
     8        If they are under an obligation as from now, their defence
              will be an abuse of procedure that they made if they do
     9        not attempt genuinely to justify that defence.  They have
              no right to put in a defence of justification without
    10        attempting to prove it.
 
    11        I think that is the counterclaim.  All sorts of leaflets
              have been allegedly circulated by the defendants or
    12        supporters of the defendants, or whatever, which
              McDonald's have put in a big pile.  There is no evidence
    13        whatsoever that the defendants have circulated any of the
              leaflets specified, that any of the people that did
    14        circulate these leaflets were agents of the defendants.
              So that remains to be seen in the particulars which the
    15        plaintiffs will be serving soon, then we will know what
              case we have to meet because there is some information in
    16        the other leaflets which is not in the fact sheet.
 
    17        There are a lot of things in the fact sheet that are not
              in the updated leaflets.  This whole area is a very grey
    18        area that the plaintiffs are creating which makes
              everyone's job more difficult.  Here we have the case
    19        about a fact sheet, both sides -- well, the obligation on
              the defendants to prove the fact sheet.  The plaintiffs
    20        gradually began to bring in later leaflets which are not
              really relevant to the claim.  Suddenly, because of their
    21        actions, on the eve of trial, we are forced to make a
              counterclaim.
    22
              In defence of that, the plaintiffs disclosed a huge wad of
    23        extra leaflets which they say justify their defence
              without any particulars whatsoever, so we do not know when
    24        they were handed out, where, who by, how they were agents
              of the defendants, or whatever.  It has really muddied the
    25        whole area.  We do not know what case we have to answer,
              neither does anybody else at this moment, except for the 
    26        plaintiffs so they have to put it down on paper as soon 
              possible.  That is the counterclaim. 
    27
              I just want to go through some other bits and pieces to
    28        finish off.  As I have said, this is a fundamental look at
              the McDonald's Corporation, about their motivation,
    29        profits, their motivation for the things that they do and
              their business practice, it is about uniformity,
    30        restriction of choice, mass consumerism, specially about
              image.  The McDonald's Corporation basically is really a

Prev Next Index