This has to be slightly vague because it would identify me easily.
A company I worked for received a letter about a product that was described as defective. It wasn't defective the customer had chosen some incompatible options (and some personalisation) and then complained that they didn't work well together if at all. As a goodwill gesture we wrote back and offered to replace the components of the purchase that didn't work, at their expense. We would take off the cost of the initial components from the cost of the new ones if they returned them. This was basically a minor cost to them because the stuff was bespoke and had been personalised so technically it was their problem not ours.
This obviously wasn't to the liking of the customer who said in the next letter they wanted their money back. All the correspondence was passed on to the legal bod who just said to ignore it. Another week another letter this one from a lawyer stating in the first paragraph:
1. That the product was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.
2. That we had not contacted his client even after him repeatedly contacting us.
3. We had not offered restitution.
The second paragraph started with something like:
"All the attempts at restitution that you made whilst in contact with my client have proved inadequate"
He went on to explain that it would go to Money Claim OnLine (the new version of the small claims court) unless all the money was refunded by a certain number of days after the date of the letter. As all the letters including ours were sent registered post his dating the letter a few days earlier than posting was pointless.
The lawyer had obviously overlooked the fact that he'dcontradicted himself in the same letter over the "facts". We had made no attempts to contact/restitution in the first paragraph and lots in the second. Our legal bod laughed out loud when he read it and agreed it was bollocks. He sent one back to the lawyer explaining that he'd be quite happy to go to court.
He explained that we had email chains where it was explained (in language even Donald Trump could understand) that the purchase was unwise. The customer was putting together incompatible bits and having things personalised. That the customer had responded that they understood and wished to continue knowing all this. That it stated quite clearly in our T&C's that if you personalise anything you can't return it subject to applicable laws on defective products. He also pointed out the contradiction in the letter the lawyer had written. He also said the goodwill gesture was withdrawn given the threat of court.
We heard nothing more about it. The legal bod said he suspected the lawyer hadn't been given all the facts. He said it still didn't explain the contradiction in the letter which was probably down to the lawyer being crap.