A woman is reportedly demanding $20 million in compensation from KFC after claiming she found her bucket of chicken to be half-full.
Yes, According to the Evening Standard, who tweeted its report based upon a story in the New York Post, – so, very much at third hand at least, I bring you :-
Anna Wurtzburger, 64, accused KFC of false advertising, complaining that her $20 bucket of chicken looked nothing like the ones advertised.
She told the New York Post: “I came home and said, ‘Where’s the chicken?’ I thought I was going to have a couple of meals.
“They say it feeds the whole family….They’re showing a bucket that’s overflowing with chicken. You get half a bucket! That’s false advertising, and it doesn’t feed the whole family. They’re small pieces!”
Ms Wurtzburger who is retired and lives in New York State, said the meal was supposed to be a treat and was so disappointed that she decided to complain.
But when she phoned up KFC’s HQ they told her the chicken was shown overflowing from the bucket in the adverts “so that the public could see the chicken.”
Ms Wurtzburger replied that: “If you want to the public to look at your chicken, put it in a dish” she said. “It’s a lot of B******t – I expect to get what you’re telling me.” [What can she have said? Birdnest? Buckshot?]
Ms Wurtzburger has since hired a lawyer, demanding $20 million in damages.
Not sure what to say about this, especially since the case is in America, and anyway it’s one thing to shout numbers like $20 million to newspaper reporters, another to get a Jury to agree with you.
In England punitive damages are not so much of a thing as in USA, certainly not in contract cases.
However the concept of an award in damages as a punishment, rather than as compensation, did first appear in England, The earliest case I have identified is link here from 1763. A jobbing printer had been arrested by the King’s messenger upon a defective warrant.
Although the period of his detention was only some six hours, and he was fed with beefsteaks and beer [but no KFC] and “was used very civilly”, still the jury had awarded him to be paid £315.00.
Certainly this sum was not the amount calculated exactly to financially reimburse him for the loss of six hours of freedom. The man only earned a Guinea [One pound one shilling, now One pound and five pence] per week so three shillings and sixpence = 17 pence would have done that.
Three hundred Guineas was therefore about as much as he would expect to earn in nearly six years, a huge amount. Still under $20 million, mind.
But the appeal Judge said the action of the Bailiff in making this false arrest bore all the hallmarks of the Spanish Inquisition, “under which no Englishman would wish to live an hour” and that the Court’s respect for the Law and also Magna Carta’s repugnance to “Arbitrary Power” entirely justified the award.
So, Ms Wurtzburger has that history behind her, I suppose.
One point that it does occur to me to mention, is the sense of frustration I feel that the tale does not relate to MacDonald’s. [Other purveyors of beef patty are available]
Then the headline could have been, “That vas the vurst Burger I ever ate” – said Ms Wurtzburger.
I’ll get my coat.
A quick song – link here – and away. Do you want fries with that?
As always, whenever you require any help with Notarisations and foreign legal documents, please do not hesitate to contact me or Christopher Atkinson here at AtkinsonNotary [0113 816 0116 or email@example.com] where we shall be more than happy to assist further.