|
Forum: Pentax Price Watch
04-23-2014, 12:09 PM
|
| |
isn't this just a case of caveat emptor, ie purchasing blind over the internet?
the company makes a good faith effort to represent a product for sale and the buyer purchases that product. however, if the product does not meet the buyer's expectation, the only requirement is a full refund of the purchase price?
obviously had this been a POS transaction, this whole situation would not have occurred, but to infer malicious intent on B&H's part is a little inflammatory.
also, we don't have the transcripts of the phone call to B&H, but perhaps the Sigma 500 was offered because there is NO 400mm k mount lens out there as a replacement, and the OP wanted 500mm reach.
we can speculate why maybe a 50-500 wasn't offered, which would have been on par with the 150-500 he used to own, maybe he insisted on a "pro" level lens and that's all the poor flustered customer service rep could come up with after being berated.
I think this "tantrum" is an overreaction. I definitely don't see this as bait and switch. I can understand the panic and the disappointment, so the OP has my sympathies for that. however the demand for compensation for being aggrieved is a tad overzealous.
as a last resort, there's always lens rental for a short period until a replacement for the 150-500 can be purchased. will he find a $1500-2000 lens for 900? maybe, maybe not, but to hold B&H soley responsible and to insist on punitive damages seems a bit vindictive.
|
