Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 45


     
     1
     2        They could have had every good intention of that being so,
     3        but decided that the second page was beneficial and got
     4        good response and, therefore, decided to extend its life.
     5        It is very, very common for an advertiser in America to
     6        make commitment to a placement of an advertisement for one
     7        or two quarters and then either modify, discontinue or
     8        continue it.  Their plan initially goes only so far; if
     9        the advertisement is a success, they will extend it beyond
    10        their initial plan.  That is a very real possibility that
    11        does not require any bad faith or other negative
    12        attribution to McDonald's intention, but merely that their
    13        intention changed.
    14
    15        I cannot say from what they published to the McDonald's
    16        family in December 1986 what their plans were in April or
    17        May 1987 regarding those advertisements.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Mr. Rampton is suggesting to you that it is
    20        a compelling invitation to take 101 and 171 together that
    21        the original plan was that after the first insertion only
    22        the first page would appear?
    23        A.  I would agree with that inference as to the plan as it
    24        existed whenever McDonald's drafted, but the Time mock-up
    25        of December 1986, presumably, I could not agree with that
    26        later because I have seen many instances where advertisers
    27        have changed their plans.
    28
    29   MR. RAMPTON:  You recognise -- this is not meant to be an
    30        offensive question -- you are a trained lawyer with many
    31        years of practice in litigation -- the difference between
    32        assertion, proof and speculation, do you not?
    33        A.  Yes, Mr. Rampton, that is why I could not answer your
    34        question as you wished me to.
    35
    36   Q.   But looked at with the clear mind and the precise training
    37        of a lawyer, taking those two documents together, it is
    38        compelling evidence that your intervention had nothing
    39        whatever to do with the removal, as it were, of the second
    40        pages of those advertisements?
    41        A.  It is some evidence, I do not find it compelling.  Had
    42        that been brought to my attention at the time, I would
    43        want to know what other documents existed at McDonald's in
    44        the December to May time-frame dealing with the placement
    45        of those advertisements that would show, in fact, that
    46        McDonald's intention was, what were the internal
    47        documents.
    48        Those I have not seen.  Because we received assurances
    49        that the advertising that we were concerned about was not
    50        continuing, then we did not need to take it further. 
    51 
    52        But that is exactly what we would have gotten had we 
    53        needed to get into the question of whether our
    54        intervention caused it.  It is, in fact, nothing we would
    55        have done because, from our investigative standpoint, we
    56        did not view it in the public interest to try to see
    57        whether or not we got credit or blame for stopping a
    58        series of advertisements.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is the reference to "year-long" in the

Prev Next Index