> There's something in the law pertinent to the fact that this guy bought at a retail location, which causes TJ's loss on their commercial real estate which presumably they invest in to reach the consumer public with quantities said consuming public would typically purchase.

I thought people do this all the time, successfully defending themselves in court when necessary. Can you show me statute or a current judicial decision that says otherwise?

What happened here, is that Pirate Joe's didn't have enough money to pay their lawyers, so they gave up and settled with Trader Joe's.