Day 024 - 15 Sep 94 - Page 56


     
     1        resolve it or we would file suit.  In rare instances, they
     2        could show us why factually we were in error, but this
     3        particular case was too far along for them to be able to
     4        do that, because the types of arguments that Mr. Califano
     5        makes, as I have just articulated for the court, were
     6        non-responsive to the concerns that we had.  Saying that
     7        something is a chemical stabilizer and not a chemical
     8        preservative, then in passing admitting that maybe there
     9        was a preservative in there but, nonetheless, denying our
    10        accusation that that advertisement claim was false, is not
    11        responsive to the claim.
    12
    13        We deemed it unnecessary and unproductive to try to go
    14        back and say, "Oh, yes" to them and say, basically, do
    15        nothing than reiterate what we had already said in the
    16        initial letter.
    17
    18   MR. MORRIS:  We want to finish today if possible or at least
    19        early tomorrow.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The important issue if, indeed, it remains
    22        is how things ended, is it not?
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   Yes.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Mr. Horwitz said they did not call the
    27        advertisements.  It might have been -- at one time
    28        I thought your case was, that they did.  Mr. Gardner said
    29        at the beginning of the day that what happened -- you
    30        asked him and what he seemed to be saying at one stage was
    31        that there was an assurance that the campaign had a finite
    32        limit on it and there was an assurance that it would not
    33        be pursued beyond that.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, he said that, but he said another
    36        thing.  He said "McDonald's promised us it would stop the
    37        campaign".
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In any event, whatever Mr. Gardner's
    40        evidence will be, that is an important topic.
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  After this letter that we have just been
    43        referring to was sent, can you recall what happened after
    44        that?
    45        A.  The May 5 letter that I sent to Mr. Califano?
    46
    47   Q.   There is actually a further letter on page -----
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  169 is the May 12th 1987 letter from yourself
    50        to -- no, sorry. 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:   From McDonald's solicitors ----- 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:  To yourself.  It is in the trial bundle at 169.
    55
    56   THE WITNESS:  There were some telephone communications
    57        regarding the desire of McDonald's to meet with Attorney
    58        General Mattox as well as me, I believe, but to discuss
    59        the concerns raised in the General's letter, the initial
    60        letter, not the initial mailgram, that we at that point

Prev Next Index