Day 233 - 26 03 96 - Page 44

 
 

                                                                  DAY 233
 
 
 
 
 
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  I think it was, because the map that turned up was
     2        a Costa Rican map which was not the map; and, therefore,
     3        I think was Costa Rica, and I think he did say that he had
     4        it.  He plainly did not have it here.  Whether he has it in
     5        Oakbrook, I know not.  I did not deal with it specifically,
     6        because I dealt with all those Costa Rican documents under
     7        the single -- and I would say, actually, leaving aside
     8        legal questions of power -- under the single umbrella of,
     9        to use your Lordship's words:  is there really any more in
    10        this case any kind of a live issue about where the beef
    11        comes from and came from in Costa Rica, and whether that
    12        was ever rainforest?  Really, I -----
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  As long as you are content you have said what
    15        you want to on that, I did not want you -----
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  That is how I deal with that.  I would say this:
    18        a lot of the documents which the Defendants have asked for,
    19        we probably do not have; but even if we had them, I do
    20        object to being asked for what I call pointless or
    21        irresponsible discovery.  I am not here to provide the
    22        Defendants -- I have said it before, but I will say it once
    23        more -- with an opportunity to see whether they can make a
    24        case which they presently do not have.  That is the
    25        attitude I take on Mr. Cesca's map of the forbidden regions
    26        of Costa Rica, if it should exist.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The other matter is in relation to power --
    29        because I remember your argument based on the
    30        specifications.
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There are two points on that.  The first is
    35        -- I am right, am I not -- that we do not actually have
    36        any documentation which shows exactly what the contractual
    37        relationship is so far as any specification documents are
    38        concerned between what I will just call McDonald's Brazil
    39        and the First Plaintiff, or Costa Rica Fast Food SA, which
    40        is the Costa Rican company, or Industrie de Hambugesas SA,
    41        which is the Guatemalan company?
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  You are right about that; that is correct -- not
    44        so far as I know, anyway.  I have never seen them.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  All these questions are dealt with on balance
    47        of probabilities, as to whether a right to claim, a legal
    48        right to claim, exists or not, just the same as anything
    49        else; it is just what is more likely than not.
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  If it were a matter of construction, that is ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is a matter of law.  But if I do not
    54        actually have a document to construe, am I not thrown back
    55        on what is the most likely position?   I accept that I have
    56        to be a bit more rigid if I have got the contractual
    57        document.
    58
    59   MR. RAMPTON:  If you have a contractual document, you have to be
    60        completely rigid, I think.  But if you have not, then the
 
                                      44