Shotguns Barrels and Stocks

Purchased product arrived in a 'not as advertised' condition. Shotgun barrel did not contain the advertised 'screw-in' choke.Mr. [redacted] is the advertising mgr. for [redacted].com of[redacted]. Using that address he operates a side business of selling/trading used shotgun barrels. On March 4,2014 I purchased a used barrel from him with the added commitment of a 'screw-in' choke for that barrel. The barrel will not function safely without it. THE BARREL ARRIVED WITH NO CHOKE. Upon contacting Mr. [redacted] by phone he acknowledged that he had no chokes for that particular gauge barrel and offered to take the barrel back for a full refund. I would have incurred additional shipping charges. I had, by that time, already purchased the proper choke for the barrel. To resolve the situation I have asked Mr. [redacted] to send me a choke from several other shotgun gauges. He has refused. While I now have a working shotgun barrel, I have incurred additional expense beyond the original purchase price and shipping charges. Desired SettlementI have asked Mr. [redacted] to 'make good' his original commitment by sending me a shotgun choke to accommodate either a [redacted] 12 ga (Invector) or a [redacted] 20 ga [redacted] He has refused.Business Response Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)Since Mr. [redacted] was less than truthful during the original transaction I was reluctant to send my shotgun barrel back to him in the hope that he would in fact refund my money. I would additionally have paid two shipping charges. Mr. [redacted] has subsequently phoned my house, identified himself and left a threatening (and profane) message on my home anwering machine. I have turned the recording and an incident report in to my local law enforcement here in Connecticut. I will let them contact Memphis PD and pursue the incident from there.Re:[redacted]'. I see Mr. [redacted]'s remark concerning the use of his employers facilities as a 'convenience'. This, in my opinion, still constitutes a business liability and should be recognized.