Same thing happened to me end of last year. Seems to happen occasionally when there are very small quantities. I can’t say I was massively surprised or particularly miffed. As this week’s Hardy Nichols feeding frenzy & previous personal experience with L&W have demonstrated, variations on this theme seem to happen with a lot of retailers when there is a sudden rush of demand for limited stock.
But in this case Joe said he wanted the magnum not damages or compensation. SP may not often be awarded but a claim for SP will result in TWS having to source one which is not beyond their capability.
Don’t think so. SP is a discretionary remedy and the Courts don’t like it as it is hard to monitor - what happens if TWS cannot/will not find a replacement? Damages are easier and close the issue.
If Joe presents evidence of replacement cost then that should be awarded, assuming there is a breach of contract, which would depend on TWS terms and conditions.
There is no obligation to spend the sum awarded on a replacement bottle.
Richard
I have been a specialist commercial litigation solicitor for 38 years, dealing mostly with breach of contract claims. I stand by what I have already said.