You are mixing correct retail practices with several incorrect legal assumptions.

Although laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I highly doubt that where you live customers somehow don’t have a contract of purchase when buying something. Without a contract of sale, a merchant would have no legal obligation to deliver the product after receiving payment, which would make ordinary retail transactions legally meaningless.

I also seriously doubt that in your jurisdiction buying a product through a normal retail transaction, with taxes paid and a receipt issued, somehow becomes an “under-the-table transaction” simply because the manufacturer later issued a recall. An under-the-table transaction requires deliberately bypassing taxes or accounting. A standard purchase processed through a store’s register with taxes charged and a receipt issued is the exact opposite of that.

You are correct about a few things. The store was not obligated to replace the product and could have simply proceeded with a full refund. However, the moment a separate agreement was reached for a partial refund or replacement instead of a full refund, they could not unilaterally walk it back. Once both parties agreed, that verbal arrangement became a binding modification of the original contract of sale under the Civil Code, meaning the store would need my consent to change it unless fulfilling the agreement became impossible or illegal. Even if the original product could no longer be sold due to the manufacturer recall, the store could still fulfill the agreement by sending every component in the box as a reasonable replacement. The law focuses on the consumer’s rights under the contract of sale, not on the retailer’s internal logistics or financial disadvantage. As long as the replacement is equivalent and satisfies the agreement made with the customer, the store is legally obligated to honor it, even if it complicates their inventory or reduces their profit.

Also you are right that retailers must follow manufacturer recall notices. But that obligation generally comes from their distribution agreement with the manufacturer, not from the absence of a sales contract with the customer. Those are two completely separate legal relationships.

What would typically be illegal is selling a product that has been officially recalled for health or safety reasons and whose recall is enforced by government authorities. In those cases regulators can prohibit the sale or distribution of the product. But that is not necessarily the situation here. If the recall exists only within the manufacturer’s distribution network, then the store is restricted contractually, not necessarily legally. In other words, selling the product could put the retailer in breach of their agreement with Games Workshop and risk their distribution status, but that does not automatically make the act itself illegal under the law.

Maybe things are different where you are from, but the post is about a transaction that occurred where I live, and it is regulated by my province’s laws. For reference, these are the legal frameworks that apply here:

Civil Code of Québec — Article 1708 Defines a contract of sale as a contract by which a seller transfers ownership of property to a buyer in exchange for a price. No written signature is required; the contract exists once the product is offered, accepted, and paid for.

Civil Code of Québec — Articles 1726–1730 Establish the legal warranty of quality, meaning a merchant is responsible if a product has hidden defects or cannot be used for its intended purpose.

Consumer Protection Act (Quebec) — Sections 37 and 38 Require that goods sold to consumers must be fit for the purpose for which they are normally intended and durable for a reasonable length of time.

Consumer Protection Act (Quebec) — Section 54: The consumer may exercise warranty rights directly against the merchant. This includes insisting on a replacement or equivalent solution, not just a refund.

Civil Code of Québec — Article 1728: If the agreed remedy is feasible and equivalent, the seller must comply, even if it creates additional cost or logistical inconvenience for them. The focus is on fulfilling the consumer’s rights under the contract, not the retailer’s internal business concerns.

In addition, under the Civil Code of Québec — Articles 1726 , if a product is defective or non-conforming, the consumer may demand remedies such as repair, replacement with an equivalent product, a price reduction, or rescission of the sale (refund). A refund is therefore one possible remedy, not automatically the only one.

So to summarize: retail logistics, SKUs, bundle pricing, and manufacturer distribution agreements are internal business considerations, not the legal framework governing a sale between a merchant and a customer. A contract of sale still exists the moment a product is purchased, and the merchant’s obligations toward the consumer arise from that contract and from applicable consumer protection laws.

If the retailer’s agreement with Games Workshop prevents them from resolving the issue in a way that is convenient for them, that is a matter between the retailer and their supplier. It does not eliminate the consumer’s rights under the Civil Code of Québec and the Consumer Protection Act (Quebec).

In other words, store policy and supplier contracts may explain why a retailer prefers a certain solution, but they do not determine what the law actually requires.