Unliquidated damages is not the only remedy for a tort and that for some torts, it is not even the primary remedy. They are other remedies also. They are

the case, State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, MANU/SC/0025/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 933: (1962) Supp 2 SCR 989, the plaintiff had claimed a damages for Rs. 25,000, but the court awarded only Rs. 15,000. Considering such element of tort, it can easily be distinguished from contract and bailment where the amount of loss is always pre-determined and inelastic. This definition also lacks other remedies viz. (a) self-help (b) injunction; and (c) actions for specific restitution of property.

* Self help can be availed by a person without going into a court of law. For example, if A finds a drunken stranger 'B' in his room then A is entitled to get rid of him without force but if he does not succeed then he can use as much force which is required to evict the stranger from his room. So, in Winfield's definition, an action for unliquidated damages is not necessarily the primary remedy for a tort.

* Injunction is the order or judgment given by the court to restrain the commission or continuance of some wrongful act or omission. For example, in case of nuisance, the first remedy that would suggest itself is injunction and an action for damages would then follow. Thus, here injunction is the primary remedy and not the unliquidated damages which comes later.

* Actions for specific restitution of property are the alternative remedies in law of torts. When the plaintiff has been dispossessed of his land, chattels or goods by wrong means then only such remedies are granted. It can be said here that an action for damages is not essentially the primary remedy.