Originally posted by Frogfish I'm not aware of the law in the USA but I do know that the law in the UK used to be (it may have changed to fall in line with EU law whatever that is) that if you advertise an object for sale at a particular price then you are obligated to sell it at that price.
This is fair enough because otherwise the retailer could clearly be open to the charge of switch selling (bait & switch). I'm not suggesting for one moment that is the case with B&H - a retailer who I have heard nothing but good things about.
This is only relevant if the retailer doesn't admit mistake or otherwise make it right. In this case, it sounds like BH immediately offered to pay the shipping and take the product back. They're already paying for their mistake by ponying up the extra shipping and losing a sale. Mistakes happen, and it's unreasonable to expect them to compensate more than this when they are clearly operating in good faith.
Originally posted by Frogfish I agree with the OP - if you clearly advertise (and then verbally confirm the price and contents) then the retailer should be legally obligated to supply the package they have agreed to.
Gnatzee - game ? The OP put his money down, that hardly seems like a game that he was playing to try to catch out a retailer.
Pricing mistakes are often treated this way, even on this forum. Someone sees an unbelievable price that one can surmise is a typo, others jump on it and hope the company will not realize the mistake before shipping the product. I
don't think the OP was operating this way from the outset, and I don't blame him/her for being upset at the inconvenience of not getting what was expected. However, once BH clarified that they screwed up and offered to rectify it, the continuing anger and expectation that they give out a discounted lens anyway is what I find unreasonable.