Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 30


     
     1        beef, you have to be aware that that may present a problem
     2        to you.
     3
     4   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, but I think it hinges on the interpretation of
     5        their contract, of their contracts -----
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We know nothing about their contract, do we?
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  No, I mean in McDonald's contract as a whole, we
    10        have number of ones here about their food products and
    11        their  -----
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But we have no reason to say that there is
    14        any similar provision -- this is what concerns me -- in
    15        relation to Weddels or Braslo or whoever was the immediate
    16        supplier.
    17
    18   MR. MORRIS:  With respect, I believe that these McDonald's food
    19        specifications are binding on all their suppliers of their
    20        food products internationally.  They are international
    21        specifications.  We have seen how the specifications that
    22        emanate from the US apply to the UK with similar force.
    23        So, I think it is safe to -- the evidence that has been
    24        given in this court is that they apply to every country.
    25        So, the suppliers in Brazil will be under the same
    26        obligation as the suppliers in the UK to comply with their
    27        contractual specifications.
    28
    29        So, I think that if a document is relevant it ought to be
    30        disclosed.  If the Plaintiffs wish to argue that the
    31        contracts in Brazil are different from the general
    32        international contracts, then I think that is open to them
    33        to do so.  I think the evidence that has been given in this
    34        court is that these contracts are binding on all their
    35        suppliers.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Right.  What do you want to do then?  Do you
    38        want to go on to your various heads of documents?
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:  There was actually something else I wanted to say in
    41        relation to this.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    44
    45   MS. STEEL:  It is something that concerns me.  Relating to the
    46        Brazilian issue (but this, I think, applies to other things
    47        as well), there appears to be a very flexible definition of
    48        what exactly McDonald's is and what its suppliers are.  In
    49        the question about whether in 1983 if McDonald's were the
    50        major shareholder they would have had the documents 
    51        relating to Brazil in their power, whether they would have 
    52        had to hand them over; Mr. Rampton said, in their 
    53        submission, they would not have had the power at that
    54        stage.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What as I understand he is saying, so that
    57        you can answer it if you have an answer, is it does not
    58        matter that it is the company in that instance McKey is the
    59        subsidiary and McDonald's has a majority shareholding in
    60        it, that is not sufficient to give it power as defined in

Prev Next Index