Originally posted by newmikey So let me get this straight: you ordered a banana when you wanted a pear. The greengrocer was nice enough to let you send back the banana so he could exchange it for a pear, charged you a nominal fee and now you are mad at the greengrocer for not using telepathy to second-guess your initial order? Moreover, you are of the conviction the greengrocer should suffer the cost not only of administrating this exchange but also of putting the banana back on sale?
I agree the OP is being a bit harsh in his criticism of B&H, but he's not criticizing their lack of telepathy, as you put it. He's just peeved about the second-part; the $30 which is probably the cost of administration and placing the banana back on the shelves. I agree that the restocking fee is at least customary (if not reasonable) and certainly B&H seems be playing by the rules they (and most retailers) set. But there certainly are situations where one might expect a retailer to call it an "even exhange" and just swap out one unused item for another of equal value. But the OP probably didn't choose to purchase from B&H for that "No problem, we're on a first-name basis!" type of customer service, because places like that charge a bit more at the register. B&H is an excellent vendor, and the OP probably got a nearly un-beatable price, but he later decided he'd rather have more "forgiving" customer service. Too late, I'm afraid. But if he knows where to find both, I'm sure we'd all be interested.
On another thought, is it possible the $30 was not a re-stocking fee, but reflects a price change that occurred after the OP accidentally messed up his order? This quote makes me wonder: "when I made my purchase both lens were priced the same. " Notice the OP specifies the lenses are the same price
at the time he placed his original order. It could be that the OP wanted B&H to honor the earlier price. That's chutzpa.