SUBSCRIBE

Breaking News on the Food and Drink Manufacturing Sector

Headlines > Regulation

Read more breaking news

 

 

Kit Kat claim woman ‘won’t get lifetime supply’

6 comments

By Laurence Gibbons+

08-Feb-2016
Last updated on 08-Feb-2016 at 16:54 GMT2016-02-08T16:54:27Z

It was unlikely a student would be unwrapping a free lifetime supply of Kit Kat after purchasing a defective bar
It was unlikely a student would be unwrapping a free lifetime supply of Kit Kat after purchasing a defective bar

A woman who has demanded a lifetime supply of Kit Kats after purchasing a defective multipack of the biscuits was unlikely to succeed despite claiming monetary and emotional distress, according to a legal expert.

While Nestlé has a duty of care to ensure its products were free from such defects, providing a lifetime supply of said product would not be required as part of any settlement, law firm Roythornes solicitor on its food team Lizzie Naylor told FoodManufacture.co.uk.

“ … Where a damages claim is made, a customer may expect to claim damages for any foreseeable losses suffered, for example getting a refund or the costs of replacing the product. But that would not normally include general compensation for distress, inconvenience or disappointment,” she said. 

Hard to prove in courts

“It would be up to an individual to demonstrate that they had suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of any defects, which may sometimes be hard to prove in front of a court.

Kings College London student Saima Ahmad claimed Nestlé broke its duty of care to consumers and threatened legal action against it, after she purchased a multipack in which none of the bars contained a wafer biscuit.

Ahmad has demanded a written apology from Nestlé bosses, a full refund for the £2 product she purchased and a lifetime supply of Kit Kat so she can act as “quality control” for the manufacturer.

Must have quality control checks

While there was no legal method for food manufacturers to protect themselves from these defects, Naylor said they must have the right level of quality checks within their manufacturing processes to try to ensure that defective products do not reach the shelves.  Also, the products they do market must be as described and suitable for sale.

“Where the product is not dangerous to health there is no need for a product recall but, again, this is an area where manufacturers should hold clear and well-tested policies,” Naylor added.

Meanwhile, readers of this site attacked Ahmad for being greedy and even accused her of extortion towards Nestlé.

You can read some of our readers comments, which also suggested Ahmad might struggle to find work after appearing across the media and appearing to make ‘irrational demands’ towards Nestlé, below.

Nkinaku

Unfortunately, our system is a victim of its own success and, here is an example of such idiocy that may yet allow some apotheosized law firm take this to an unexpected, unjustifiable end. Don't be surprised if she wins in this uncontrolled blame culture. For all our sakes, reason should be forced to prevail against any institution aligned with such silliness!

Stephen Poole

I'm no legal expert but I'd challenge her. Take it to court, try to win a case where no harm can be demonstrated. In fact, counter-sue for extortion which is clearly what she is doing in demanding reward for her finding.
It seems Nestle don't even have a record of a complaint yet, but FM please keep us updated. I'm intrigued.

Glenn C

Honestly, these things do unfortunately happen, even to your life giving chocolate bar, anyone would think they had removed her life support, get over it and experience something other than complaining about things so petty that most people would think this is sad.

Tony R

Well Missy! I hope this has backfired on you!
A free lifetime supply of chocolate to "quality test?"
Citing duty of care? Emotional deprivation?
Quite clearly, your upbringing has given no you morals and your education should be be best spent learning. Not trying to box clever.
An social media star (not) - for the wrong reasons!
Employers remember this face, for when things don't go her way, you can expect a grievance being brought against you - for maybe ruining her social life by making her work!

Adam B

If I was nestle I'd not be giving her four fingers .... But two !
To act as QC she would have to be employed by the company full time .... And call me a cynic but I can't see that happening

6 comments (Comments are now closed)

Quality Control????

Waiting until the product has been wrapped and sent out is not quality control! Unless she is trying to get a job on site?

Report abuse

Posted by Peter Woodham
21 February 2016 | 19h232016-02-21T19:23:36Z

Coeliac's Dream

Getting a KitKat without wafer would be celebrated by any very mild Coeliac.

Report abuse

Posted by Phil Roberts
11 February 2016 | 10h552016-02-11T10:55:45Z

The Dream!

Madness, waferless kit-kats are the dream! Every time I have one I hope that it won't have wafer! I still remember when it last happened - Saturday 6 June 2009. Oh that was a good day; even better than Ice Cube's Good Day. Happy times.

Report abuse

Posted by LH
10 February 2016 | 13h512016-02-10T13:51:51Z

Read all comments (6)

Related products

On demand Supplier Webinars

Lean & Green Manufacturing
WRBM
All supplier webinars