Law student demands lifetime supply of KitKats over waferless multipack
Saima Ahmad wrote a letter to the manufacturer quoting case law from the 1930s claiming 'monetary and emotional' loss
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A law student is demanding a lifetime supply of KitKats after she bought a pack of the chocolate bars without any wafer.
Saima Ahmad, 20, a second-year law student at Kings College, London, is demanding Nestle compensate her with a lifetime supply of KitKats, or face her taking legal action.
Ms Ahmad wrote a letter to the manufacturer claiming "monetary and emotional" loss, quoting case law from the 1930s to back up her arguments.
She bought a multipack of eight KitKats from her local supermarket for £2 last month, but was disappointed when she bit into a solid bar of chocolate, ITV News reports.
"Clearly, if I wanted to purchase a confectionery item that is purely chocolate, I would have purchased a bar of Galaxy," she said.
"I wouldn't rule out taking this further if Nestle do not apologise or compensate me adequately."
However, she admitted she is "trying her luck," adding "if you don't ask you don't get".
An extract of her letter to Nestle reads: "The truth of the matter is; manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
"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.
"The loss I have suffered is of monetary and emotional significance."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments