Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 41


     
     1
     2   Q.   Is the position this, that if the campaign came to the end
     3        (to which it was always intended that it should come) some
     4        time during 1987, for the larger part, you were not
     5        concerned thereafter to take any kind of enforcement
     6        proceedings?
     7        A.  My position has nothing to do with the intentional
     8        date of the termination, so I could not answer it that
     9        way.  I could tell you our goal in contacting McDonald's
    10        was to ensure that the advertising would not be continued
    11        and to receive their assurances as to that.  When we did
    12        determine that, our requirements had been met.
    13
    14   Q.   Yes.  Are you familiar with the Latin phrase which is
    15        sometimes used in legal and logical circles in this
    16        country, post hoc propter hoc?
    17        A.  Yes, I am.
    18
    19   Q.   It describes a fallacy of reasoning, does it not?
    20        A.  I do not know that.  I am not a logic scholar.  I do
    21        know that it may describe a conclusion that is an
    22        inference that is incorrect; it may also describe a
    23        conclusion that is absolutely correct.
    24
    25   Q.   What I am putting to you is this:  It would not be right
    26        to infer, to borrow your word, from the fact that the
    27        McDonald's advertising campaign came, a large part of it,
    28        by no means entirely, to an end during the first half of
    29        1987, it would not be correct to infer from that that your
    30        intervention had anything to do with that event.
    31        A.  From those facts of themselves without any of the
    32        other facts that are before the court?
    33
    34   Q.   We will come to that but so far would you agree with me?
    35        A.  If the only fact is that something stopped after it
    36        was demanded that it be stopped, I think a reasonable
    37        inference was that it might have been stopped due to the
    38        demand.  It is an equally reasonable inference that it
    39        might not have been stopped due to the demand but for
    40        other causes.
    41
    42   Q.   What I want to know is this:  Do you assert that your
    43        intervention had any part to play in McDonald's decision
    44        not to extend the campaign beyond that part of 1987?
    45        A.  Yes.
    46
    47   Q.   Why do you make that assertion?
    48        A.  Based on the totality of facts as opposed to the
    49        limited facts you were just reciting.  It is my belief
    50        based on -- I could not tell you where I have seen it -- 
    51        some things, some of the materials, relating to McDonald's 
    52        in that campaign, that this was a year-long campaign, that 
    53        provides support for the inferential proof that when
    54        McDonald's assured us that no further advertisements were
    55        forthcoming in the third and fourth quarters of 1987, that
    56        that year-long campaign had been truncated early.
    57
    58        I also read into Mr. Rosberg's statement, in his letter in
    59        response to, I believe it was, the April 24th 1987 letter
    60         -- it may have been in response to a subsequent letter --

Prev Next Index