I am not a legal professional, either, although I do have a law degree (JD). What you are suggesting is right on point. And that is, that the “victim”, here, “relied upon” the advice of the seller, who held themselves out as “experts”. It may not be “fraud”, exactly as fraud includes the element of “intent to defraud”, which may not be the case here. For there to be fraud, the seller had to have intentionally switched out the correct lens with the replacement lens — for whatever reason — figuring that the customer would not know or care. It’s a matter of whether or not there was “full disclosure”. If the seller said, “We don’t have the 16-80, but we have the 16-85, which will work just as well for you”, fine, no problem, but there should have been a price adjustment or some other similar compensation.

This was also a “contract”, of sorts. If “fraud” was involved, the aggrieved party has the right to rescind the contract. Return the product(s) and receive a full refund. If “fraud” was NOT the case, here, the seller should be given the opportunity to “cure”, or to make good on the “contract”.

I am not a lawyer, but I have played one in negotiations before. I quess you could go to small claims court. If, you get a SCC judgement in your favor isn't it still up to you to figure out how to collect on the judgement or am I mistaken.

Also, it seems to me that the OP accepted the change to the deliverable and agreed to it. So, would the seller be at fault in the eyes of the court? Seems to me the contract was changed and the change agreed to buy the OP. Is ignorance of the switch being a "bad deal" the fault of the seller. I am not sure the seller forced the change but rather offered it. But it could be a bait and switch I guess.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

I am not a lawyer, but I have played one in negotiations before. I quess you could go to small claims court. If, you get a SCC judgement in your favor isn't it still up to you to figure out how to collect on the judgement or am I mistaken.

Also, it seems to me that the OP accepted the change to the deliverable and agreed to it. So, would the seller be at fault in the eyes of the court? Seems to me the contract was changed and the change agreed to buy the OP. Is ignorance of the switch being a "bad deal" the fault of the seller. I am not sure the seller forced the change but rather offered it. But it could be a bait and switch I guess.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

I thought state law determined the return period and terms that the retailer had to follow as a minimum. At least that is what I recalled from my time working in retail in high school. We had a 30 day return policy but only in exchange for a due bill, no cash refunds had to be given if the shop chose not to do it. That POed some customers but it was a law to protect small business owners.

Of course the other issue is that how much time, money and effort would it take to fight this issue with the seller. Most people just look at it and say it is not worth the trouble to fight for a couple hundred dollars. The same problem we have today with small crimes. The police don't pursue them and they are basically allowed to go on by society. Another tax on We the People.

Best,
Todd Ferguson