I was actually slightly wrong in my original comment. I’ll fix it.

It’s not the terms and conditions, but US law (I’m assuming he’s from the US).

15 U.S.C. Chapter 50 §2301(10) defines a warranty “remedy” as…

…whichever of the following actions the warrantor elects: repair, replacement, or refund; except that the warrantor may not elect refund unless (i) the warrantor is unable to provide replacement and repair is not commercially practicable or cannot be timely made, or (ii) the consumer is willing to accept such refund.

It goes on to define a refund as…

…refunding the actual purchase price (less reasonable depreciation based on actual use where permitted by rules of the Commission).

As I recall, these other companies were either offering but not mandating a refund, which is legal, or claiming they didn’t have equivalent products in stock, which allows them to unilaterally opt for a refund of the original purchase price instead.

This is a perfectly acceptable policy in a sane world, but it’s 2026. Party to the bottom! Wooo.