Day 005 - 04 Jul 94 - Page 11


     
     1        action of going to a court we are pretty sure of the
              facts.
     2
         Q.   Just allow me a couple of minutes to collect my thoughts.
     3
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you not talking about litigation where
     4        the company has been a defendant, if an employee has had
              an accident or something like that, because that would be
     5        controlled entirely by the insurance company, would it
              not?
     6        A.  There are cases where an employment tribunal, for
              example; I would not be intimately involved with that, but
     7        I would know it was taking place.  If there was an issue
              where we had an environmental health charge of some kind,
     8        I would be aware of what is happening.  It may not be my
              choice whether we go to court or not; it may be someone
     9        else's choice, but in issues where we have to go to court,
              I will be involved and I will be the person who says "yes"
    10        or "no".
 
    11   MR. MORRIS:  I just want to go to another subject completely,
              about your unique lack of contract with the suppliers?
    12        A.  That is right.
 
    13   Q.   By using what you might call "handshake and trust"?
              A.  It is more than what you might say; that is what it
    14        is.
 
    15   Q.   How does this apply to say, for example, when -- I am
              trying to think of an example -- you develop, say, a new
    16        potato strain?
              A.  Same thing.
    17
         Q.   You must?
    18        A.  It is the same -- we have no contract.
 
    19   Q.   Is it not a great risk for the company?
              A.  Yes, it is.  We have no contract with any supplier, be
    20        it beef, bread, milk, potatoes, anything.  We have no
              contract; we have never had any contract.  Yes, there is
    21        most definitely a risk on both sides.  It is probably what
              keeps both organisations most concentrating on the true
    22        end objective.
 
    23   Q.   But you put a lot of resolve and effort and risk money
              into a project or into a field of surprise or whatever,
    24        and is there not a possibility you could lose all of those
              investments?
    25        A.  Yes, and so could the supplier.  It behoves us to work
              together to accomplish the objective, not because a piece 
    26        of paper tells us we have an obligation, or they have an 
              obligation.  It behoves us to work together mutually to 
    27        our mutual benefit.  It is not a matter that you do
              something because a piece of paper tells you have to; it
    28        is good business.
 
    29   Q.   But does, say, for example, this potato supplier
              recognises that his crops and investment which you should
    30        have the first option on?
              A.  Sorry -- say that one again.

Prev Next Index