Oh my, I am very surprised by the sentiments of many here. Many of whom would be regarded as Masters of the Universe and run companies affecting the lives of many. 1. Leffot's proft isn't 475 US. Leffot got it probably at 500 to 600 cheaper than what Patek was quoted. But thats not their profit either. You have to deduct their S & H and whatever overheads they have. It may even be 200 to 300 only. 2. Leffot isn't being vindictive or vengeful. They are protecting their own business by asking EG why is EG undercutting Leffot selling EG shoes? This is nothing against Patek. There probably is some legal agreement for EG not to sell the shoes themselves. This would explain why EG was so fast to cancel Patek's order. Its also bad business for EG to undercut Leffot like that. 3. In this whole thing, its Patek who loses. Leffot is not going to make a sale to Patek the moment EG was willing to sell to Patek at a lower price. So they have no sale to make here at all. EG is not going to sell to Patek due to their agreement with Leffot, so they didnt lose a sale. Patek loses because now he cant get his shoes unless he swallows his pride and buy from Leffot. 4. Which brings us to the next point - 1.7 G for those shoes are too damn expensive. Even if its from a navy unicorn butt, I won't pay that price. 5. The only thing people got right is that EG is in the wrong. It has already been commented that EG's business practice is poor. EG could have easily told Patek they made a mistake. But like what is mentioned here, EG does not make mistakes. Patek should get some London consumer affairs folks and not hire a Magic Circle firm to look into the matter and ask EG why they are not able to fulfill their contractual obligations. It would be interesting to hear what EG says.