My BOM Mastercard has a clause that allows for vendor malfesance, which includes non-delivery of goods. Since the delivery is not as agreed, the onus is on the vendor to ship correctly. Since the shipment was not as agreed, it is the same as if the vendor shipped the wrong item and it was returned. It still is a non-delivery. I've only had to use this clause once in many years. Every time they change the cardholder agreement, I make sure that this clause has the same effect.
NOTE: in the case of an accepted shipment, there is an argument that the fees as invoiced are due, based on the aspect of an accepted delivery. One could make the argument that the item is boxed and ready for pickup, as, based on the notice invoice, this is now a refused shipment. You have to make it clear at *the very first contact* that the signature has been revoked. It is not clear that this argument will hold absolutely in small claims court. But it should have at least equal weight as the argument that you accepted the shipment *blind of the invoice*.
-- one downside of digital documents is than you cannot annotate them, unlike a paper contract. I have often taken a contract, 'striked' out a clause and initialed it, then offered it to the other party to initial. This has the effect of nullifying that clause if initialed and you get a copy of the contract. In a paper world, I always strike any invoice clauses, demanding an accounting up front before accepting.
