[pasbesoin]

He indicated they refunded him for the duplicate order that he mistakenly placed and that resulted in his being charged twice. Ergo, the second book wasn't a "freebie" until customer support, after processing a refund, also made it a freebie.

[kamjam]

Yes, I understand that, but plasticsyntax says he is not obliged to return the item. Sure he is obliged to return the item if he placed the order by mistake, and the duplicate is sent not due to an error on the part of O'Reilly.

I understand when the second book became a freebie but they could have asked for it to be returned at buyers expense...

[pasbesoin]

It's been a couple of days, but I think I was agreeing with you rather than countering.

As I see it, they could have said, "You ordered it. It's yours." Or they could have said, "Return the book, and we'll refund you (perhaps less shipping and handling, or some such)."

As it was, they said, "Here's your money back. Oh, and just keep the book." While it might indeed be easier and even cheaper for them to deal with the situation this way, it still makes for a nice customer experience. (And so, one could argue they might come out ahead in good will.)

P.S. So, I'm saying, perhaps they couldn't insist the book be returned. But they also didn't have to issue a refund, if the original order (as is described per the OP) was legitimately -- even if mistakenly -- placed. (I.e. he really did order it. It wasn't fraud. And the web site didn't mis-behave -- perhaps this remains an open question, depending upon the exact behavior and a determination of his culpability versus the site's.)

Anyway, more than enough typing about this...

[kamjam]

Haha, fair enough, think I just didn't get the gist of what you were trying to say!

It's a very nice sentiment indeed, and think it adds much more goodwill than the value of the book.