Kings College Student Saima Ahmad, 20, has informed Nestle that she is demanding compensation for the “monetary and emotional loss” associated with her recent purchase of KitKat bars. To her continuing horror, she found that eight of the bars contained no wafers inside.
Citing authority going back to the 1930s, Ahmad is demanding a lifelong supply KitKats. She notes that “The truth of the matter is; manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers . . . The failure to take due care in the manufacturing process resulted in a product being defective.”
The nightmare began for Ahmad when she bought a multi-pack from a supermarket for £2. In her letter to Nestle, Ahmad stated “Clearly, if I wanted to purchase a confectionary item that is purely chocolate, I would have purchased a bar of Galaxy . . . No one else in that industry has that unique concept about mixing the wafer with the chocolate and that’s why I’m a fan.”
The demand for lifetime KitKats however is not a one-sided offer. Ahmad notes that she will use her perpetual consumption of KitKats to serve as a ‘quality control’ for the company.
Absent the supply of lifelong KitKats, Ahmad warns “I wouldn’t rule out taking this further if Nestle do not apologise or compensate me adequately. . . . As I mentioned in my letter of complaint, an unlimited supply of KitKat would do.”
It would do but I would not count on it.
28 thoughts on “English Student Demands Lifetime Supply Of Kit Kats After Being Sold “Defective” Bars Without Wafers”
Unlike you, I assume that nothing coming from this person’s mouth is truthful, and that assumption is based upon the overly exaggerated manner in which she has decided to handle this minor and trivial mistake on the part of Nestle. Truthful people don’t need to embellish minor and inconsequential wrongs. That’s not going off on a tangent, as you put it. That’s simply stating what I believe to be transpiring in this situation. If, however, you wish to indulge in a fantasy and proceed to assume that she is, in fact, telling the truth, in that others have experienced a problem with missing wafers, my response would have to be that any sensible corporation should not involve itself–in any manner, whatsoever–with a being who sought to threaten it with legal action and/or demanded a lifetime supply of its product to satisfy such an infinitesimal wrong. That person is not the proper candidate to report on the company’s quality control standards, as illustrated by her prior conduct. Note, she didn’t just alert the company as to a potential problem, which would’ve been commendable, she proceeded to threaten it, demand an apology and force it to relinquish a lifetime supply of its product. So, no, to answer your question, she is not doing the company any favors by continuing to report to it regarding the quality of its products. She is trouble, waiting for a place to happen. Nestle should run, not walk, away from this troublemaker.
I don’t know about you, but I believe that MOST most companies would never want to have anyone– who has threatened them in the past with legal action and a demand for a lifetime supply of the product–to have anything, whatsoever, to do with them, once the original complaint has been resolved. The wisest action would be to cease any and all contact with this woman, once this frivolous matter has been settled. She may unilaterally crown herself as the quality control expert for Nestle or simply declare that she is the Queen of Sheeba–her statements don’t make either of these claims true or credible. Ahmad has made her point–we get it–her candy was, according to her, defective. Her claim about others having the same problem is baseless, as I assume that she has no proof of said defect affecting others and is merely blowing smoke to bolster her own complaint. Again, simply saying so doesn’t transform a random statement into one which is true or valid. If she wants some sort of compensation, I am sure that Nestle will do what it needs to do to rid itself of this pest, thereby avoiding incurring the ire or wrath of CAIR, who will surely turn this idiocy into something much more sinister.
bam bam – you did not assume what I asked you to assume. You went off on a tangent. Assume my assumption, then deal with the argument. 😉
She may not ever know the trouble she saved herself by not having that “thin bit of wafer.” Thanks Darren.
Comments are closed.