1. Cameraland could have requested RW send his scope (with them sending him a shipping label) to them and they would have sent him another display/damaged/etc scope. It would have cost them shipping back to them then shipping to Vortex. RW would have been out nothing and would have received a scope equal to what he purchased.
2. Cameraland could have requested RW contact Vortex who would have had him ship the scope to them (Vortex covering shipping) and sent him a NEW scope. It would have cost Camerland nothing extra on the shipping, RW would have been out nothing and would have received a NEW scope of greater value than the one he purchased.
I like efficiency and common sense. I'm not big on the "my feelings were hurt because I wanted it this way" stuff.
Now consider this, in the future if all of Camerland's dealing with Vortex (or any manufacturer) run a risk of them having to pay return shipping, shipping back to the manufacturer, and shipping for a second item to the purchaser, who do you think is going to carry this cost in the end product price? Maybe that Vortex was so attractively priced because of how warranty issues were handled... Think common sense and efficiency. RW is coming out better with Vortex sending him a new scope than he would have been receiving another demo/damaged box scope.
