Did the aspiring lawyer rely on the case law classic of Donoghue v Stevenson?
A King’s College law student has invoked a piece of 1930s case law to demand a lifetime supply of KitKats, after she received eight without wafers.
Saima Ahmad, a second-year LLB student at King’s College, London, threatened KitKat’s creators, Nestle, with legal action after purchasing a multi-pack of the popular chocolate treat for £2 last month.
The aspiring lawyer from Enfield, north London, clearly stunned that not one of her eight KitKats contained its famous trademark wafer, decided enough was enough and drafted a strongly worded letter drawing the manufacturer’s attention to a legal precedent from the 1930s.
Despite it not being clear which precedent Ahmad relied upon, Legal Cheek believes it was none other than the infamous ‘snail in the bottle’ case. Yes, good old Donoghue v Stevenson. This legendary House of Lords decision, handed down in 1932, created the modern concept of negligence and is still the benchmark for today’s duty of care.
That duty, says the enterprising law student, was breached by Nestle. Ahmad alleges the confectionary giant fell short in its “manufacturing process” and “misled” her. According to online news website Metro, Ahmad’s letter continued:
The specific duty you owe in consistency in your manufacturing process. The failure to take due care in the manufacturing process resulted in a product being defective. As a result I feel as though I have been misled to part with my money and purchase a product that is clearly different from what has been marketed by Nestle.
Claiming to have suffered a “monetary” and “emotional” loss, she continued:
I would like a full refund of the defective pack of KitKat I purchased. I have also lost my faith in Nestle. Clearly, if I wanted to purchase a confectionery item that is purely chocolate, I would have purchased a bar of Galaxy. I would therefore like to request a life-long supply of KitKat so that I can act as a means of quality control – it appears you need me more than I need you.
In a perfect example of ‘first world problems’, Ahmad — who hopes the CEO of Nestle will respond personally to her letter — described the waferless KitKat phenomenon as an “extremely important issue”.
With many law students struggling to tackle the day-to-day demands of studying law, it’s impressive that wannabe lawyer found the time to hone her letter before action skills and take on a global organisation.
But perhaps, while she waits for her lifetime supply of KitKats, Ahmad should take a break.