I thought the point was that MDJAK believed the proprietor lied to him about not having the new model because he was trying to clear out inventory of the older model. I also took it that MDJAK was able to rationalize his actions to some degree based on that belief.
Yeah, I got that, but I cannot see why any sane retailer would do that.
There are two possible outcomes to that tactic and the retailer loses out either way.
1. The customer comes in wanting the latest model because it has cool new features, he has the mone to pay for it. The retailer says "we don.t have it in stock, but we do have the old model which is cheaper", the customer leaves the store and goes to find a store which does have what he wants. Retailer loses a sale.
2. As above, but the customer decides to go with the older model at the lower price. Retailer makes a sale for an item $1,000 cheaper than the one he COULD have sold.
I really don't see how, even if they did make the sale and the customer didn't leave without buying anything, that is to their benefit. They may well still have older inventory to shift, but there will be people who cannot afford (or don't need) the latest model who will be looking for that model as it is so much cheaper.
Why would they deliberately lose the extra $1,000 sale, and risk losing even more if the customer left to buy the new model elsewhere?