Andy Velebil wrote:the retailer didn't like David's proposal and said no. Their right to do so and none of us can get upset about that.
Agreed. But that's not what they actually did, and THAT is the problem.
Andy Velebil wrote:So is it that hard to ship back the two Fonseca's (at their cost) and have them send you the Warre's, no! There is no need to try and start a slander campaign.
Looks to me like the outrage is being caused by the fact that the retailer charged his credit card for something that he did not authorize. If they'd simply said that they would ship the Warre (at their cost) and include a return label for the two Fonsecas, I doubt there'd be a problem.
Andy Velebil wrote:the retailer didn't like David's proposal and said no. Their right to do so and none of us can get upset about that.
Agreed. But that's not what they actually did, and THAT is the problem.
Andy Velebil wrote:So is it that hard to ship back the two Fonseca's (at their cost) and have them send you the Warre's, no! There is no need to try and start a slander campaign.
Looks to me like the outrage is being caused by the fact that the retailer charged his credit card for something that he did not authorize. If they'd simply said that they would ship the Warre (at their cost) and include a return label for the two Fonsecas, I doubt there'd be a problem.
That is where things get thin on the details he posted. It appears they had a conversation, they didn't like his proposal, he didn't like theirs, they settled on returning the fonseca and shipping the warres. A some point they charged his card for the fonseca's it appears he said he'd keep. But again, this part is where he appears to be intentionally vague on details.
