I'm not really complaining about Tire Rack, but am interested in what you guys think.
My retired father asked me to get him two Blizzaks (tire/wheel combo, actually) for his mini-van. I suggested that four would be better, but he couldn't afford them. I placed the order for two on Sunday and the following Tuesday he gets a call from Tire Rack where they tell him he needs to buy four or they won't sell him the tires at all.
Their reasoning was that mixing tire compounds on a vehicle could lead to unpredictable handling and they didn't want to expose themselves to the liability. They would, however, sell him two if they have sold him Blizzaks in the past for the same vehicle.
I suggested that if they were really concerned about liability that they must always sell four regardless of purchase history. Since the special compound of a Blizzak wears away long before the actual tire wears out, it could be very possible for a customer to unknowingly mix normal snow tire compound Blizzaks with new, ice tire compound Blizzaks. Or, A customer could have also replaced the tires locally and was deciding to only get two the next time around. I'm sure you guys can find more holes in their argument so I won't get into that.
I'm not sure if I should be annoyed that they are trying to force me to buy something that I don't want for shaky reasoning (I believe people have a right to assume certain liabilities) or if I should be satisfied that they have the customer's best interest at heart. This is where the discussion starts...
I didn't put this in performance industry because I think it is more philosophical than a complaint.