Day 299 - 13 Nov 96 - Page 06


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know.  Then the final bit is that they are
     3        promoting, they say, consumption of the meals as a fun
     4        event when they know full well that the contents could
     5        poison the children who eat them.  I mean, at the moment it
     6        really seems to me that what the Defendants are saying and
     7        what might be right -----
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:   Plaintiffs.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, thank you.  --  are saying is that they
    12        market their goods heavily in one way or another with a
    13        view to exploiting children in two ways; first of all,
    14        getting them to up their profits by dragging their parents
    15        into McDonald's; and secondly, doing that when the food is
    16        not going to do them any good, in fact might well do them
    17        some harm.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  Obviously, we do not agree with their pleaded
    20        meanings, but I am coming on to all these things.  I was
    21        trying to deal with 'I' first, the one about using gimmicks
    22        to cover up the fact that the food is low quality.  I mean,
    23        it is not clear whether or not they are saying that, you
    24        know, to say that McDonald's uses gimmicks is defamatory.
    25        That is why I felt that I had to deal with it.  I mean,
    26        I have tried to -- I am not clear what the Plaintiffs are
    27        complaining about in this section of the case, which
    28        specific parts they accept and which they do not.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I am not sure that, if I had not sat down to
    31        draft this Statement of Claim myself, I would not just have
    32        said that the defamatory meaning -- this part of the
    33        leaflet -- is that it alleges that McDonald's aim much
    34        advertising and promotion at children because they are
    35        susceptible to it and they will put pressure on their
    36        parents to take them to McDonald's although the food is
    37        poor and even poisonous, and in that way they are
    38        deliberately exploiting children.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:   My Lord, I am not sure that it really matters
    41        what the precise terminology, if your Lordship were a jury,
    42        of the Statement of Claim is.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   No, would not know what it was anyway.
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:   It is merely intended as a summary of the nature
    47        of the Plaintiffs' complaint.  The jury would not be
    48        allowed to go higher than what is pleaded.  But if the jury
    49        should re-interpret the words complained of in the way your
    50        Lordship has just done, which is another way of, as it
    51        were, summarising what has been attempted in the Statement
    52        of Claim, there could not possibly be any objection,
    53        anyway, as your Lordship says, one would not know.  But the
    54        natural ordinary meaning pleaded in the Statement of Claim
    55        is not, I would say, to be construed in like a deed or
    56        contract.
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   That has left me none the wiser in terms of whether
    59        the Plaintiffs are objecting to the description of the fact
    60        that they dress up their food with the use of gimmicks.

Prev Next Index