Business Law:
Article 3

URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3425414/student-20-demands-lifetime-supply-chocolate-no-wafer-kitkat.html

 

Article: Student, 20, Demands Lifetime Supply Of Chocolate Because She Had No Wafer In Her Kit Kat

 

Author: James Dunn

 

Date: 31/01/2016

 

Source: The Daily Mail

 

Brief Summary:

 

Saima Ahmad, a twenty-year-old law student from King's College London, is appealing for a lifetime supply of KitKats from Nestlé as the £2 KitKats she bought were “wafer-less”. She claims that Nestlé has breached their legal duty to care for their consumers, and she threatens to take legal action against Nestlé. She even includes a judicial precedent from the 1930s to favour her case.

 

Saima believes that she is not the only one who has experienced this. This is crucial because Nestlé has a duty to care for their customers as their products were being manufactured inconsistently. She says that she felt cheated for buying something totally different from her expectations, which caused her to suffer both emotionally and monetarily.

 

Topic: Law Of Tort (Negligence) & Sale Of Goods Act 1957 (Section 15)

 

Opinion:

 

In our opinion, Nestlé should be accountable for their negligence because they have breached their legal duty to take care of their consumers, which have resulted in undesirable damages to Saima as one of their customers. Firstly, Nestlé is under the legal duty to take care of Saima because she is their "neighbour" in law as their actions are directly affecting her.

 

Secondly, Nestlé has breached this legal duty because they have sold a good to Saima that is totally different from what they have described and was supposed to sell, which a "reasonable man" would not have done. Additionally, according to Section 15 of the Sale Of Goods Act 1957 of the Malaysian law or Section 13(1) of the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 of the English law, there is an implied term that a good sold by description. In this case, the KitKat bought by Saima does not correspond to its description. Therefore, Nestlé is clearly at fault for breaching this implied term.

 

Lastly, the damages suffered by Saima were caused by Nestlé's breach as she would not have suffered emotionally and monetarily if Nestlé had not breached their duty to take care of her as a consumer. Also, the damages suffered by Saima were not too remote from Nestlé's breach because a "reasonable man" would be able to foresee the damages as a similar case regarding Nestlé's KitKats has happened previously.