No offense, especially since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't like this idea. I think it's a dangerous precedent to have for one, but more importantly, it isn't fair. Why should the buyer have to pay for the mistakes of the seller? It's no different than you parking your car in the driveway at night, going to bed, and then having someone hop the curb with their car and crash into yours while you're sleeping. Sure, it would be nice (to the crashing driver) to share the cost of repairs 50/50, but it's the driver's fault who crashed the car and he must have to pay for the damages. Not only is this fair, but it's also what the law says. There are similar laws when it comes to sales of goods. The purchaser is fully entitled to what money was tendered for. Contracts have a binding aspect that is often referred to as the "meeting of the minds" (you can look this up, it's real). Minds were met to sell a fully functional unit. Money was tendered for a fully functional WA6SE. What was received is not a fully functional WA6SE. How it went from fully functional to not functional will always be a mystery. Normally, if this item was packed perfectly, if any damage did occur, it would be up to the post office to pay for damages. However, since this item was not properly packed, the seller bears all financial responsibility. The seller did not live up to his end of the contract, which came at the expense of the buyer. Since the buyer did not get what was paid for, the buyer has rights to recuperating money or getting a different, or repaired, functional unit. Contracts must be fulfilled. Going 50/50 does not fulfill the contract.