If you have ever bought anything from HSU research

Viablex,

I have no relationship with HSU (good or bad) so I'm glad it worked out for you in the end. However, if I understand you story correctly, you're simply wrong here.

It was your responsibility to know the terms of HSU's product offering as stated on their website and re-printed here by Mofi before you bought the sub from them. You signed up for the deal on those terms (and those terms aren't remotely close to fraud). In short:

You bought a subwoofer from HSU.
YOU DECIDED THAT YOU DIDN"T WANT IT (when you refused the offer of a replacement subwoofer).
You returned it.
Therefore, you were subject to the return policy.

Outside of a delivery delay due to a third party (Fedex), refusing a replacement sub is no different than receiving a new sub from HSU and deciding to return it.

I understand that you didn't think the subwoofer was of acceptable quality, but HSU has a policy for that circumstance. You seem to be upset that you can't use Fedex's misbehavior to crawl out from under that deal. I think many folks would agree that this is not a reasonable expectation on your part.

As to HSU getting paid by Fedex - that's between HSU and Fedex and has zero to do with your deal with HSU. Of course, you point out that Fedex's settlement payment would allow HSU to accommodate you without losing money - which you ultimately convinced them to do.

But remember, HSU ultimately accommodated you with a refund when they had no obligation to do so. You should understand that this says a lot (all of it good) about HSU.

Matto,

Maybe it's simply that you're not being clear.

You now write:

Not really no one gets off the hook for selling defective merchandise, then getting reimbursed for the unit and shipping and reusing the unit and making more money.

Maybe you intended to communicate something different, but that's not how your OP reads. Per that post (at least as I read it), HSU shipped a unit and FEDEX damaged it. So far, FEDEX has botched their job, but HSU has done nothing wrong. (Your objection to product quality noted, but not relevant here - HSU never guaranteed that you'd like the product quality and even specified a policy that governs what happens if you don't.)

HSU was reimbursed by Fedex when you refused it/returned it to them. Again, HSU pays FEDEX for a service (including damage insurance), they're simply settling per their agreement. Nothing wrong by HSU, yet.

HSU offers you a replacement (but not a refund) per their policy. Still HSU has done nothing wrong here, per your agreement with them. You may wish they had done more for you, but so far everyone (except you) has been respecting the terms of the agreements they've entered into. Which brings us back to:

Not really no one gets off the hook for selling defective merchandise, then getting reimbursed for the unit and shipping and reusing the unit and making more money

What makes you think HSU "re-used" the damaged unit? Unless I'm misreading your OP, you never accepted a replacement, so it's not like HSU sent you a patched up re-pack as a replacement. How do you know what HSU did with the unit that FEDEX damaged?

Unless there's something you haven't shared here, the only fair assumption is that HSU discarded the damaged unit (assuming that Fedex even returned it to them) or repaired it and sold it as B stock. Do you have any evidence of some other behavior by HSU? If you don't, do you understand why people read your complaints re: HSU's behavior as unreasonable?

BTW, if I've misrepresented what you wrote in any way, it's not by design. I believe that it's a straight read of your OP, tho please clarify if I've gotten it wrong.

As to having the right to a refund because you received defective merchandise:

My understanding is that neither Federal law nor California state law automatically guarantees a buyer the right to a refund when they receive defective merchandise. Indeed, in many cases, items may be sold "as is", where no refund OR replacement is required, although there's a bunch of law requiring that this policy be "clearly made known in plain language" to the buyer. So, the terms of a seller's agreement with a buyer may absolutely allow for replacement (rather than refund) in the event that a unit is received defective. Let's also not forget that you described receiving a unit DAMAGED in shipping (that's not the same as "defective"). Although that distinction may not be relevant regarding your rights to a refund, it does make it even harder to reasonably "blame" HSU for not stepping up "beyond the call of duty" (the letter of their agreement with you).

In short, it's hard to understand why you think you had a right to a refund here. It's easy to understand why you want one and why you might hope that HSU steps up for you, but it's hard to see why you'd accuse HSU of "fraud" and other misbehavior when they didn't.

Again, HSU accommodated you - possibly because they didn't want the hassle of dealing with you and any advocacy offices that you involved in the process. I'm glad it worked out for you, but you haven't made a case against HSU, yet - as least as far as I can see. I don't think anyone is being antagonistic towards you here, it's just that your OP didn't support the accusations you made vs HSU, and the new post doesn't either.

My mistake for engaging.