Day 233 - 26 03 96 - Page 45

 
 

                                                                  DAY 233
 
 
 
 
 
     1        best that the court can do, I would submit, is to look at
     2        what contractual materials it has got and build an
     3        inference of probability -- yes, I agree with that -- on
     4        the face of those documents.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me get out my children's bricks and build
     7        this house.  It is a requirement of the First Plaintiff
     8        that no beef comes from recently deforested rainforest
     9        land.
    10
    11   MR. RAMPTON:  It is now, yes.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Or has been since 1989; and Mr. Cesca would
    14        say earlier, and there may be a conflict about that.  Can
    15        I not infer that, by some route, it is a term of contract
    16        between the First Plaintiff and the supplying companies in
    17        the three countries that they provide some confirmation of
    18        that, in the same way as the First Plaintiff has felt able
    19        to demand of its US supplying companies that they do not
    20        take any imported beef or anything of that kind; and the
    21        second stage, if they are entitled to demand that, are they
    22        not entitled to demand it not just so that they feel cosy
    23        in their armchairs in the evening, but so they can spell it
    24        out to the rest of the world that it does not come from
    25        rainforest or ex-rainforest land?
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  Those are questions your Lordship might ask.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What is the answer?
    30
    31   MR. RAMPTON:  I would have to answer them seriatim, if I may,
    32        because in fact -- I am just writing it down, because in
    33        fact I believe -----
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Suppose you are right, that if one looks at
    36        the specification there are things there where the supplier
    37        would be perfectly entitled to say: "Yes, well, of course
    38        we are happy that you should see documents to reassure
    39        yourself about the quality of our product, but that
    40        certainly does not entitle you to documents so that you can
    41        demonstrate to the rest of the world the quality of the
    42        product."  When we come into the question of rainforest,
    43        both the supplier and the First Plaintiff would perceive
    44        that it is not just a question of not taking rainforest
    45        cattle so that you sleep well at night; it is a question of
    46        not taking it so that public opinion is not agitated
    47        against you.
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  I am not sure that I would agree with that
    50        proposition.  It depends on the view you take; and it is a 
    51        matter for your Lordship, obviously.  I am not at all sure 
    52        that I agree with that.  I do not believe that it would be 
    53        a term of a contract, if one can put it explicitly, between
    54        the corporation and the joint venture partner in Costa Rica
    55        that the Costa Rican joint partner must, under all
    56        circumstances, disgorge documents so that McDonald's can
    57        use them to fight off black propaganda.  I do not believe
    58        that at all.  McDonald's, for their own purposes, may, so
    59        that they can sleep well at night or be comfortable in
    60        their armchairs, be entitled to see such documents, if they
 
                                      45