a case study of honesty and fairness

Factual background:
1. I made an order (Order 1) for 1 headphone from Amazon.
2. After an eternity of checking and waiting, it was declared lost in transit or delivered to a wrong address.
3. I got a refund for Order 1.
4. I went on to make a new order (Order 2) for 2 headphones and something else from Amazon because I ultimately needs 2 headphones.
5. Order 2 was shipped.
6. I received Order 1.

Order 1 is a very small one $63 which is worth less than an hour of my time. I felt that I'm economically (but probably not morally) justified to be silent.

But I decided to do an experiment with honesty and fairness.

I decided to be completely honest with Amazon. I told Amazon what happened and asked for a solution. They asked me to return it and would reimburse me for return postage.

However, I felt this was an honest solution, but not necessarily a fair one for me.

I feel the unfairness lies in the following factors:
i). I shouldn't be asked to advance the return postage, tho it may be the only realistic way to do it.
ii). It involved costing more time on top of the wasted time I spent on this order. And I have no incentive of incurring further cost for Amazon's fault.
iii). My previous and future wasted time costs more than the order itself.
iv). Unpleasant shopping experience with Order 1.

In the end, I feel not only economically, but also morally wronged.

So I proposed to repurchase Order 1 at 1/3 of the price - a nominative price which I thought was necessary to restore the moral equilibrium between Amazon and I. And strictly and self-interestedly speaking, Amazon owes me money for the time lost in this inefficient deal.

I'm yet to receive a response.

I guess this little experiment reflects the daily dilemma of economic efficiency versus moral efficiency. The real problem is the latter cannot be materialised or measured. But that's preciously what lawyers try to do. So there is always a legalistic way to it, which is a whole different can of worms.