What is the point of this debate? Only the fictional McDonald's in your fictional scenario knows. It's an unlikely situation to begin with, so let's stick to the facts at hand.

We bought a Juniper router on sale for $120,000 and did not use some of its functionality. A base model without this functionality was offered at $150,000 by the same salesperson. I can get the quotes and the invoice. Can Juniper force us to pay the difference and report to D&B?

Can't respond due to nesting depth. But I fail to see the difference between my company buying a more expensive model for less and not using the advanced functionality, and them ditching the last leg.

We're talking about whether the actions here constitute fraud. Take your example and test your actions against the elements I posted above, and see whether a plausible case can be made. I don't think they fit, so that's why I said no.

No, what's your point?