Bizarre, Torts

English Student Demands Lifetime Supply Of Kit Kats After Being Sold “Defective” Bars Without Wafers

200px-KitKat_logo.svgKings 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”

  1. Paul C

    You remind me of those commercials that one views on television, late at night, which proudly claim that there is a LIFETIME GUARANTEE on the product. Really? A lifetime guarantee? Whose lifetime? The lifetime of the company, which may close its doors at any moment, or, my lifetime?

    I’m also quite sure that Nestle has no desire or need, whatsoever, to take Ahmad up on her offer to act as a quality control officer for its company, especially given her penchant for shaking down a corporation with outrageous demands anytime the mood strikes. I’m quite positive that Nestle has a sufficient number of employees in its quality control department and that it need not resort to employing Ahmad, of all people, to assist the company in that manner. She has only one thing going for her–yeah, you guessed it–her headscarf and her obvious religious affiliation. The photo of her, donning a headscarf, with her fat fingers, wrapped around and clutching the precious KitKat bars, may give Nestle pause to just get rid of this crazy b@$ch and give her what she wants before she turns this whole episode into some sort of religious discrimination matter and gets CAIR involved. I can hear it now–Nestle discriminates against Muslims.

    1. bam bam – assuming that Ahmad’s claim is correct and her claim that hers is not the only instance of fraudulent KitKat sales, Ahmad makes a good point that KitKat’s internal quality control has gone adrift and they need an impartial outsider (Ahmad). She really is doing them a favor?

  3. Paul C

    According to the article, Ahmad is quoted as claiming that an UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF KITKAT WOULD DO. It’s not about what you or I think that she wants or should want, as I would be willing to bet that her above-referenced words were not chosen haphazardly and without much prior contemplation. UNLIMITED means UNLIMITED–not FINITE. It’s about reading her words, exactly as they are written, and determining what it is that she is, in fact, demanding of Nestle to satisfy her perceived, horrific wrong. I believe that she is delusional enough to want an UNLIMITED supply of her drug of choice–KitKat–and I tend to take her at her exact words.

    1. bam bam – she wants a lifetime supply, That has a limit. She bought a pack of them, she did not get a wafer in any of them. She reports she is not the only one. She suggests she can be quality control for the company.

  4. I couldn’t help but think of my favorite quote from Animal House when I read this article:

    FAT, DRUNK AND STUPID IS NO WAY TO GO THROUGH LIFE, SON.

    For Ahmad, I would simply change it up a bit:

    OBESE, UGLY AND DEMANDING MORE CANDY IS NO WAY TO GO THOUGH LIFE, AHMAD.

    1. bam bam – I think there is a finite number that Ahmad would be satisfied with every year or month. I do not think she wants an infinite amount of Kit Kats.

  5. Offer Ahmad a job in the factory inspecting KitKat bars. When she gets bored senseless, maybe she’ll stop making outrageous demands.

  6. Receiving a lifetime supply of Kit Kats or Haribo Gold Gummy Bears? I would die happy 🙂

  7. Lisa N

    Lol! All of that chocolate consumption has produced a voluminous, chocolate-colored head covering, which appears to be emanating from her scalp, attaching to her head and engulfing her body. It looks angry. I think it’s alive.

  9. Allegedly, sugar stimulates the same pleasures centers of the brain impacted by the use of cocaine and heroin. Along with some strange sense of entitlement, this young woman may, indeed, have an addiction to sugar–an addiction which may be far more difficult to curb than that sense of entitlement. If, as KCF has mentioned, this woman is in law school, I would also put some of the blame on those surrounding her, as I can only assume that they may be encouraging and supporting her demand to Nestle in which she states that she believes that she is entitled to a lifetime supply of the candy. No evidence, obviously, from the article, to support that theory. Just a hunch.

  10. Addiction is not the only self destructive behavior out there. Lots of people engage in different forms, from bad relationships, over-eating, poor diet, TV binges without exercise…

    In order to claim that she suffered such serious emotional distress that she deserves thousands of dollars in candy, to be given to her without restriction, all she can eat, over her lifetime, she clearly has a self destructive pattern to her eating. And she’s also a representative of the entitlement generation. Unless she is pregnant, and then any and all outlandish demands she makes can be excused. I recall I would wake my husband at 5 in the morning with an urgency bordering on life or death to have him get me an apple, which had to be peeled for some reason. Only a peeled apple, prepared with the same urgency as if you were evacuating a burning building, would settle my stomach.

    Darren – really? I’ve never eaten Kit Kats while in Europe. That sounds yummy.

  13. DavidM: “Civilization took a wrong turn when the culture began to focus on rights instead of our duties and obligations to one another and to society.”

    You’re absolutely right and the gun rights issue is the prime example.

    1. Monty Z wrote: “You’re absolutely right and the gun rights issue is the prime example.”

      I don’t know if it is the prime example, but certainly a good one. The media always tries to frame it as the “right” to bear arms, but the real reason for that law hinges upon our duty and obligation to defend and protect oneself and one’s neighbors. In order to fulfill our duty and obligation, we must be armed. It is right there in the 2nd Amendment, but they always just skip over that first part and read the second part.

  15. Well, she is not asking for an unlimited supply. And some women crave chocolate at certain times of the month. I am sure they could come up with a number.

  16. I sure hope she is not representative of the next generation coming up. Civilization took a wrong turn when the culture began to focus on rights instead of our duties and obligations to one another and to society.

  18. For the record, the Kit Kat bars taste different in Europe: a bit of a berry flavor I noticed. They are better than the ones in the States. She should be thankful for what she has there since she gives the impression it is a primary source of nourishment in her diet.

    She want’s a wafer? How about a wafer-thin mint? We could have saved a good man, Mr. Creosote, if he had been spared that wafer. She should consider herself lucky.

  19. This woman’s got a monkey on her back, and it isn’t one of the capuchin monkeys from the other article. This one has a name–sugar. Someone needs a 12-step program.

Comments are closed.