velobard said:
Zoran, try reading CG's response again. ... The key word here is "later".
I did, all of them. If you could please do the same you will notice that some things don't stand up in front of logical analysis of chronology of events and possible flow (I don't have time for details right now). That leads to indicator there is a real chance there was a time period during which such stock was shipped out while they were aware of the problem.
One of the simplest indicators that might have been the case is that they seemingly never went on backorder. If you are aware there is an issue you stop filling and you stop shipping. However person in question kept ordering as late as 12/06, they kept shipping as late as 12/06, and 01/07 boom we know there is an issue and we already addressed it.
Next, once they became aware there is an issue what they did to be fair to customers? Did they contact all customers that purchased during period in question products using bottles in question and said "Dear customer, we became aware of the issue and if you received less please let us know and we will correct it"?
From what we know they didn't do that. They sit quiet and will address it only for those that notice it, but for others "thanks for your money for less product". Do you know what consumers would say if food or beverage manufacturer that realizes they shipped less product than claimed on the bottle sits quiet about it?
And even to those that noticed it and complained initial offer was not fair. One doesn't need to wait to order more product before he should get what is righteously his and he already paid for.
So, which part I missed and need to reread? I feel I have read it exactly like it should be read, by not accepting words that don't pass scrutiny of logic and what is right, but by "reading" what they truly mean.
