KitKat Without The Wafer Center Is Becoming A Problem Worthy Of A Court

by N/A, 8 years ago | 2 min read

KitKat is dominating the Internet newswire of late for both creative deliciousness and failing to meet even the basics of their own patented recipe. The former is what you've probably heard of the Japan branch releasing the sake-flavored KITKAT. The latter? Well, let's just say people have had it with not getting all that they were expecting when buying a KITKAT, which is known for two things:

1) Chocolate
2) Wafers

With one of those things left out, it's missing half of what makes KitKat good.

Business Law Desserts Non-Premium

It starts with the sad saga of Pete. You see, Pete's world is broken, because when he opened his KitKat, he was startled and alarmed to find they were lacking half of the ingredients list: wafers.

Now, eating a bar of chocolate is hardly nightmarish, but when you're expecting a crunchy greeting and don't get it, it can be jarring, to say the least. Poor Peter, right? Yes, but he's not alone in this ongoing, where-the-hell-my-wafers-at?! story of dessert detective work.

Next, meet, well let's just say Twitter User. She also has a problem with KITKAT, and it involves the lack thereof, of, you guessed it: wafers.

Where are these wafers, and how can these people be repaid for their pain and suffering? You don't think eating a wafer-less KitKat constitutes pain and suffering? Well, the next woman we'll meet in this tragic candy aisle story feels that wafer-less KitKats not only constitute pain and suffering but should be found in a constitution somewhere.

Enter Lorenzo Ray Olano. She recently bought a KitKat and as you can imagine, it had no wafers on the inside. What she did was not just tweet at KitKat in frustration like our other two plaintiffs of sorts, she took it a legal step further.

Olano is very hungry indeed. She's missing the half of the KitKat bar that can truly fill you up, and not just satisfy a sweet-tooth craving. She wants justice, and she wants it now. She wants to speak up for all those downtrodden individuals to have been smitten by the almighty chocolate company.

Olano is in fact quite hungry. So hungry, she feels what she missed out on in this incident is worthy of a lifetime supply of KitKat bars, she explains:

"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.

‘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.’"

Yep, she went there. Olano demanded a lifetime supply of KitKats in order to make up for her pain and suffering, stating the company needs her more than she needs them. *mic drop*

What do you think? Does Olano deserve the lifetime supply of KitKat, presumably all with both chocolate and the promised wafer center? Or, do you think Olano (and others) should in fact:

"give [KitKat] a break?"

It's safe to assume the company will use the latter (its jingle) as an argument if this thing finds its way into a court of law.