The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the

游客2024-10-08 14

问题 The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast—food chain, against two penniless environment campaigners.
   In 1997, the High Court in London found that environmental campaigners Helen Steel, aged 34, and Dave Morris, 44, were guilty of distributing a pamphlet containing allegations against McDonald’s and their fast food and its preparation. The trial lasted three years and brought to light much evidence about the way McDonald’s hamburger chain workers prepared, handled and served food, and the treatment of these workers by the American-owned company. The High Court in London awarded McDonald’s damages of 60,000 pounds (RMB 780,000) against the two penniless campaigners.
   But in 1999, three Appeal Court Judges in London decided that the two defendants found guilty of libel against McDonald’s in 1997 would have the damages they have to pay to McDonald’s reduced to 40,000 pounds (RMB 520,000).
   While upholding the libel ruling, the judges backed the defendants’ claim the food carries health risks and said allegations McDonald’s workers suffer poor pay and conditions are "fair comment". The judges also backed a claim by the defendants that eating the company’s hamburgers can cause heart disease.
   The claim that "if one eats enough McDonald’s food, one’s diet may well become high in fat..., with the very real risk of heart disease, is justified," said Lord Justice Pill, who was sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice May and Justice Keene.
   The appeal decision is likely to be a further embarrassment to McDonald’s, whose three-year action against environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris generated extensive negative publicity.
   Peter Backman, chief executive of Food Service Intelligence, a research group, said: " McDonald’s is very conscious of what people say about them. They have got where they have by listening to consumers. I think their strategy will be to downplay the ruling, refute the comments, and thirdly, to do something about it." McDonald’s said it welcomed the Court of Appeal decision to uphold the 1997 libel ruling.
   The company faces another $200,000 legal bill for the 23-day appeal hearing. Steel and Morris were to take the case to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights to appeal against the damages awarded against them. They present much of their cases themselves and any lawyer’s fees are largely paid for by donations. The pair have yet to win court backing for claims that McDonald’s damages the environment, or that there are links between its hamburgers, cancer and food poisoning.
   The fast-food chain has not yet recovered a penny of its original libel award from the defendants, who are refusing to hand over any money. [br] Why is McDonald’s not satisfied with the result of 19997

选项 A、Because it has to face another $200,000 legal bill.
B、Because it was wrongly treated by the Appeal Court Judges.
C、Because the result will make McDonald’s further lose face.
D、Because the Court announced the two defendants innocent of libel.

答案 C

解析推断题。文章没有直接说明麦当劳对1999年的裁决感到不满的原因，但从第4、5、6段的内容可以推断该原因，特别是第6段总结了其中一个原因，这也就是选项C所述的。

转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3792113.html

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the

ConservationistsonTuesdayappealedtocountriestourgentlyaddressnewth

ConservationistsonTuesdayappealedtocountriestourgentlyaddressnewth

OnereasonwhyAndyCoulsonwasarrestedisthathe[originaltext]Britishre

WhendidtheIndia’sBritishrulersopentalksonIndia’sindependence?[br][o

WhendidtheIndia’sBritishrulersopentalksonIndia’sindependence?[origina

TheGeorgeCrossisadecorationthatisbestowed______Britishciviliansforact