Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 21


     
     1   Q.   That was after your American parent company had already
     2        been taken to task for exactly the same thing in the United
     3        States about falsely trying to claim that the milkshakes
     4        did not contain any chemical additives.
     5
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  Again, I am very nervous about this kind of
     7        cross-examination.  I do not remember the first incident,
     8        but as a representation of what happened in relation to the
     9        magazine campaign in America in 1985 I regard that premise
    10        as wholly misleading so far as the witness is concerned.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  That was.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest you do, you put to Mr. Preston
    15        how many times an advertising authority has criticised
    16        something put out on behalf of either the First or Second
    17        Plaintiffs, and then by all means ask him, in the light of
    18        however many findings you say they are, whether he still
    19        thinks McDonald's is an honest company and then we will
    20        have got there rather more quickly and we will not have an
    21        argument about whether the way you put the question is an
    22        accurate summary of the evidence or not.
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   Well, it would take me ages to find them all, but
    25        I can remember that there are several, and there was
    26        another one in Norway, which was a ruling against your
    27        company for exploiting the loneliness of the child.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Put it in general terms, I suggest, if you
    30        want to pursue this line.  If either the First or Second
    31        Plaintiff, or a subsidiary was criticised by an advertising
    32        authority for putting forward allegedly misleading
    33        information on -- and then you can substitute 4, 6, 8, 12,
    34        30, what you say it is occasions, if that were so, would
    35        Mr. Preston still say that they are an honest company, if
    36        you think that one way or another the answer is going to
    37        help you.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   Well, I put it to you, Mr. Preston, that your
    40        company has had several rulings against you for misleading
    41        advertisements throughout the world, and that it is hardly
    42        reasonable to call yourself an "honest company"?
    43        A.  Well, there is no question we have had some rulings
    44        against us in our 40-year history around the world in 91
    45        countries of an advertising nature.  Whether there were 5
    46        or 10 or 15, I really do not know, I never kept track of
    47        them.  As to that meaning McDonald's is not an honest
    48        company, I would again 100 per cent refute that.
    49
    50   Q.   So you think it is possible to put out false statements and 
    51        still be honest then? 
    52        A.  I think it is possible to make a mistake.  I think it 
    53        is possible to have put something in the media which an
    54        authority has blessed and said OK to, and then subsequently
    55        have a complaint about it and deal with that accordingly.
    56        I do not believe McDonald's knowingly goes out saying
    57        something is incorrect.
    58
    59   Q.   There is also the Mcfact cards that Mr. Morris put to you
    60        the other day and your fact books which talk about chickens

Prev Next Index