He's not past that point; he hasn't accepted the new terms yet. Did you read the OP?

You're missing the point

He can return it, or he can consent

Nothing here is illegal. This structure is common, even though you guys are saying "that's absurd"

Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law

I never said anything is illegal. All I have done is point out why he has a legal right to return it, as not fit for purpose. Apparently we agree, since you said "he can return it, or he can consent".

> Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in international law that is even remotely related to these issues. Consumer rights and sales contracts are national (and in many countries even sub-national, e.g. state) issues.

If you're going to make strong assertions and tell people they're "missing the point" it might be a good idea to a) properly read & comprehend the comments you're replying to, and b) actually know what you are talking about.

I'm sorry that you feel that you can enter a conversation, deny it, then reject the existing context of the conversation as something you didn't say.

You cannot.

Good day

.

> it might be a good idea to a) properly read

I'd say the same to you, frankly.