KitKat was solid candy; lifetime supply demanded

A British law student says one of her KitKats consisted of solid confectionery missing its wafer. As compensation she wants a lifetime supply. “The student admitted she is ‘trying her luck’, adding ‘if you don’t ask you don’t get.'” [ITV]


  • Maybe one of the lawyers that frequent this site can answer this question? Is “if you don’t ask you don’t get” a valid legal theory? Seems a little dodgy to a layman like me. I bet The Kings College London must be very proud of this very unique legal scholar they are producing.

  • She’s a second year undergraduate; she also hasn’t filed suit, just sent a letter, to which Nestlé has not responded.

    “If you don’t ask, you don’t get” is a truism, not a legal theory, but a PR one. If the letter is reasonably well written, and the claim is presented reasonably professionally, it may make it easier to get a placement in the future.

    There will be no suit filed, since it would be a pretty certain loss with Loser pays kicking in. All Nestlé needs to do is send a replacement package, and they’re in the clear.

    Also, I want a kit-kat.

  • I hope she never visits a 24 Hour Dry Cleaning store.

  • I guess this is an example of how “loser pays” is not sufficient to deter all frivolous lawsuits.

  • My Response :Give me a Break!

    (Give me a break, Give me a break. Break me off a piece of that KitKat Bar.)

  • I asked a dry cleaner once what One Hour Martinizing was. She explained it was a marketing slogan, that it meant absolutely nothing in terms of time or processing of garments.
    I guess there’s a class action suit in there somewhere.

    • I thought it had more to do with the show “My Favorite Martian” 🙂

  • (Apologies in advance but someone has to go there)

    This person is accusing KitKat of not having a restrictive enough Bar Exam.

    (Sorry, that hurt even as I typed it)