Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 30
1 beef, you have to be aware that that may present a problem
2 to you.
3
4 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but I think it hinges on the interpretation of
5 their contract, of their contracts -----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We know nothing about their contract, do we?
8
9 MR. MORRIS: No, I mean in McDonald's contract as a whole, we
10 have number of ones here about their food products and
11 their -----
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But we have no reason to say that there is
14 any similar provision -- this is what concerns me -- in
15 relation to Weddels or Braslo or whoever was the immediate
16 supplier.
17
18 MR. MORRIS: With respect, I believe that these McDonald's food
19 specifications are binding on all their suppliers of their
20 food products internationally. They are international
21 specifications. We have seen how the specifications that
22 emanate from the US apply to the UK with similar force.
23 So, I think it is safe to -- the evidence that has been
24 given in this court is that they apply to every country.
25 So, the suppliers in Brazil will be under the same
26 obligation as the suppliers in the UK to comply with their
27 contractual specifications.
28
29 So, I think that if a document is relevant it ought to be
30 disclosed. If the Plaintiffs wish to argue that the
31 contracts in Brazil are different from the general
32 international contracts, then I think that is open to them
33 to do so. I think the evidence that has been given in this
34 court is that these contracts are binding on all their
35 suppliers.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Right. What do you want to do then? Do you
38 want to go on to your various heads of documents?
39
40 MS. STEEL: There was actually something else I wanted to say in
41 relation to this.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
44
45 MS. STEEL: It is something that concerns me. Relating to the
46 Brazilian issue (but this, I think, applies to other things
47 as well), there appears to be a very flexible definition of
48 what exactly McDonald's is and what its suppliers are. In
49 the question about whether in 1983 if McDonald's were the
50 major shareholder they would have had the documents
51 relating to Brazil in their power, whether they would have
52 had to hand them over; Mr. Rampton said, in their
53 submission, they would not have had the power at that
54 stage.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What as I understand he is saying, so that
57 you can answer it if you have an answer, is it does not
58 matter that it is the company in that instance McKey is the
59 subsidiary and McDonald's has a majority shareholding in
60 it, that is not sufficient to give it power as defined in
