user8788: This is, I suppose, a legal question so I should point out that I'm most interested in US and European law. 
I made a payment to a company for a product more than a year ago in bitcoin. The amount that I paid then was equivalent to $75. Now the company has failed to provide the product and they and I both agree that I'm owed a refund. However, we disagree on the means. 
The company wants to refund me - in bitcoin if I wish it - to the value of $75 of today's money. It seems to me though that I should be refunded what I paid: i.e. the same BTC value that I paid. The value of bitcoin has increased substantially since I made my original payment, meaning that the BTC amount I paid then is now worth 5-6 times more.
I happen to know (through their blog posts) that the company in question does keep stocks of bitcoin rather than converting them to a fiat currency, so they have benefited from this. That said, I don't think it should matter either way. 
My logic
You can consider bitcoin in one of two ways: a) a currency or b) not a currency. The conclusion is the same either way. Let's explore both:
a) BTC is a currency
If BTC is a currency then this is an easy question. I should be refunded what I paid, in the currency in which I paid it. 
b) BTC is not a currency
If a bitcoin is not currency then is it unarguably an asset. Surely in this case I have given a valuable asset to the company as my end of an implied contract for them to provide the goods. Given their failure to provide the goods, they must return the asset: not a fraction of it. 
Fairness
I think that, regardless of the legal side, it's fair for me to receive a full refund. Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making that profit myself. 
I appreciate that I'm not exactly neutral in this, so I'd like to know what others think. Am I being reasonable? If I am, do I have a legal leg to stand on?
Edit:
Having read through the responses, they seem to have one or both of two themes.

"The price wasn't in BTC, it was in dollars with the option to pay this via bitcoin."
"Being able to claim a refund of the original BTC amount would open the door to risk-free speculation."

For the first, this is open to interpretation. If I was being pernickety, I'd probably say this was down to the wording of the sale. However I agree that - practically - it's pretty obvious that $75 was the price and BTC was a payment method, along with Visa, Paypal etc. 
The concept of "legal tender" is one that was raised too. For something to be "legal tender'' means that one may not refuse an offer to pay a debt with that currency. It doesn't talk about refunds though: if I'm owed €1000 by someone in the US then I must accept the dollar equivalent even if I'd rather Euros. This is still €1000 though, not "whatever €1000 was worth when I entered the agreement.'' 
For the second, that is indisputable and probably represents the biggest flaw in my position. I would point out that the refund is not my doing: I would rather have received my order but the company cancelled it. However, that probably makes no difference ultimately. 
Thanks for all the opinions. It looks like the overwhelming consensus is that I am being unreasonable, so I'll give up on my demands and accept the refund. 

user13950: I think you would find it useful to know that PayPal honours the original exchange rate at the time of purchase (see here).
This is the behaviour I would expect if not otherwise stated in the Terms and Conditions of the vendor. You attempted to make an exchange of your Bitcoins in return for an item, the item was never received therefore the Bitcoins should be returned.
The price was in Bitcoins, because you paid in Bitcoins therefore the company took Bitcoins off you and not the equivalent in another currency. Whether the company sets the value of Bitcoins based against their exchange rate with another currency is entirely irrelevant, you did not pay using that currency.
Quite simply no exchange ever occurred here, you paid in Bitcoins, you will recieve Bitcoins back, I don't see how the vendor has any right to adjust the number of Bitcoins it will return because the market is favourable to do so. You swapped those Bitcoins for an item, not $75, you didn't receive the item. Simple.
Edit:
There seems to be some misunderstanding related to the fact that the vendor is situated in the US and that USD must be accepted (others have stated, I can't guarantee this).
What the law does not state is the amount of USD required to settle a debt, all it is saying is that a dollar equivalent must be provided. The debt here is 1 bitcoin, and the dollar equivalent is clearly not $75.
Please stop calling bitcoins a method of payment and not a currency. They are not a method; direct debit, standing order and bank transfer are all methods of payment, bitcoin is a currency in this regard as it is an asset that the vendor is willing to accept a quantity of in exchange for their goods. Bitcoins are the input to the method in this regard.
Many of you even state that bitcoin is an accepted currency by currency exchanges. Yet go on to state that it is just a method of payment later. You can call it skeumorphism by referring to your bitcoin cache as a wallet, but everywhere else we are treating this thing like a currency, if we then want to claim it isn't is it really so surprising that is as volatile as is?
Volatility is caused by uncertainty, and this is a prime example of why people are uncertain about bitcoin. There's examples of extremely volatile major government backed currencies out there, I don't see how volatility is an argument against its status.

user21108: I agree with George Reith. 
"I don't see how the vendor has any right to adjust the number of Bitcoins it will return because the market is favourable to do so. "
However, if this was a matter of doing what is morally correct, what do you think is the right thing to ask for in return?  The $75 you paid in bitcoin, or the amount of bitcoin you paid to accommodate the $75.  As said but to reverse whats being said in this debate, and make it glaringly clear, if the amount had lowered where 1 bitcoin = $75 on day of the purchase, but then today 1 bitcoin = only $0.25   What do you think said company would do then? Do you think they would refund the sale in $75 USD?  No, I think THEY would then reverse the bitcoin transaction and not lose $74.75 since business is business which is about making money, not losing it.  With that same logic, since that's precisely what the company in question would have done, the buyer has a right demand a refund in whichever currency they choose.  Why?  Because the customer is always right, and that's also good business.  What if the name of this company got out about how they failed to follow through both without a product AND without a valid a refund.  That can potentially lose them lots more than $75 or $475.  Again, use the logic they would, and defend your position that you have the right to ask for your $0.25 back as much as you can ask for your $4,000.75.  They would have done the same to you, but you are the customer, so ask to be treated fairly as such. 
(I really just want to see the guy get his nice bitcoin markup the way the end user should from the frustration of the argument in the first place.  I mean the guys handle is CharlieB like Charlie Bucket for crying out loud.)

user21163: If you pay X amount of bitcoins you should get back the exact same amount regardless of its market value. This is no different that with any other currencies. The value of the dollar or/and the Europe, for example, also fluctuate on a daily basis and stores don't go around refunding people based of their absolute value for a particular day. What this store is doing is unscrupulous and it sets out a very bad precedent. If I anyone can have the choice to cancel transactions because they don't benefit from them because of the increase/decrease of the valuation of the currency used, then this will open a pandora's box. Especially with currencies that fluctuate dramatically like bitcoins sometimes does. If I lend you $100 when the value of the dollar in the market is 0.85 cents, you still have to pay me back $100 even if at the time for you to repay me the value of the dollar is more or is less. That's the way we have always done it so I don't see why we should start treating bitcoins transactions differently. You paid X amount of currency Y therefore you should get the same exact amount of X of Y back. Moreover, if the transaction had happened the way it was supposed to have happened, the vendor would've been the loser in the sense that he sold a product for what consumers were willing to pay that specific day but later on, for normal economic reasons that define the laws of demand and supply, that product's price went up and now people are willing to pay more for that product. Again, by allowing this merchant to cancel or not to cancel based on either, prices fluctuations, or/and, the value of the currency used days after the original transaction has happened, would set a precedent that could mess up our way of doing business transactions. You should fight this guy all the way to the end. Moreover, I would strongly suggest that you share this merchant's name with us so we can all keep an eye opened for cancellations of this type.

user38836: Obviously, this response is 3 years too late, but...
1) this kind of nonsense is exactly on of the reasons vendors hesitate to use BTC. 
2) ask yourself this, what form would you want to get refunded if BTC exchange rate was down rather than up.  If you can honestly say that you would be happy with BTC return, then you are right to feel indigent about the situation, otherwise, cut the vendor some slack.
3) in that the vendor's de facto product price is USD, in fairness (legal or not), their refund should be in USD.  when they start pricing in BTC, then in fairness, you refund should be BTC.
4) you should be happy that they don't refund in BS "store credit"

user21094: The answer would depend on where the transaction took place.  If it was in person in the US (people can use BitCoin to buy in some stores now), the business is legally able to pay in US currency, $75.  The note on money "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" is legal language stating that you must accept it within the US.  If they pay in anything else, that's fine, but they have to agree with you on what the value of another currency is on that day.  If it was an online transaction in another country, say, the UK, then the contract law of that country would apply.
The question of whether BitCoin is a currency or an asset really is moot because for one, debts are based on a currency neutral value unless specified otherwise in writing, and for another, US currency is not an "official" currency outside the US either (although, exactly like BitCoin, it is accepted as having value abroad), it all depends on what country you're in.  The whole point of BitCoin is that it is a currency that is not tied to a country.  If you're paying in BitCoin, you're accepting that it is a currency.
Long story short, if it was a US transaction, they can pay you $75 in dollars if they really want to, so I wouldn't push anything else.

user21161: You guys are all approaching this from the wrong angle. Property and contract law make it pretty straightforward.
The answer depends a lot on the terms of the sales contract.  Specifically, how much liability the seller has for failure to deliver.  Absent an agreement to the contrary, the seller is liable for any damages caused by failure to ship/deliver (Depending on when transfer of ownership takes place) the item, in the condition specified, by the date specified.  
For example, if the item you ordered was something you needed to fulfill a contract with someone else, and their cancelling of the order caused you to default on that contract, absent a different agreement, they would be liable for your inability to fulfill your obligations.
In this case, the seller breached the contract, so ultimately the seller is liable for damages caused by said breach.  That would include loss of opportunities and/or changes in value of the items exchanged. (This has a big pile of common-law precedent.  Bitcoin is a new transfer method, not a new concept in property law.  If it was in dollars they would, technically, owe you interest, it's just that dollars are stable enough that that's not usually a significant sum, and most people don't worry about it when this kind of thing happens.)
Now, everyone else's answers about legal tender and such do apply:  You can't force them to pay you in Bitcoin.  They can pay you the equivalent value in dollars if they choose.  But there is good cause and good precedent for damages, so they may well owe you the full, current value of the bitcoins.
If the transaction is handled by them directly and not via a payment processor (who, presumably, performed their job correctly) then you have another avenue as well.  The contract was never completed as agreed, and so the bitcoins in question are, legally, still yours.  They can either give them back to you, or pay you for their current value at time of contract breach (plus interest if applicable)
All of this is, however, subject to the terms and conditions of the sales contract, which was probably presented to you at time of sale, and may well (very likely did) specifically disclaim this portion of their liability.  (You did read the entire thing, right?  And you kept a copy, right?)
Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.  I did, however, get good grades in my business law summary courses, which covered property and contract law rather nicely. 
Note for the "risk free speculation" commentators: This cannot be reliably used for that, as it is dependent on the seller violating the terms of the sales agreement.  Further, if the seller discovered that you were doing it on purpose, that would be negotiation in bad faith on the buyer's part and would shift the liability the other way. How to handle it in the case of the return policy is another matter, and should be stated in the sales agreement. If not, then it could end up going to court for arbitration, and the ruling would likely depend on the reason for the return and evidence (or lack thereof) of the buyer making the deal in bad faith.

user21166: Perkins is perhaps the closest to the mark that I can see.
But again a slight issue. The core of the issue comes from contract law.
Contra proferentem (interpretation against the draftsman)
Most of the answers here state that it is unfair that the OP in effect is now allowed "risk free speculation". However that is actually EXACTLY what the law says.
Given that the OP does not explicitly state in that there is a clause in the original transaction determining the method of refund, given that the transaction failed. Then the OP is ALLOWED to interpret the contract in any damned way he feels like (assuming it is a VALID and legal interpretation). The fact that his interpretation is governed on which way the USDBTC is irrelevant and moot, the seller (as the drafter of the agreement, should have specified in the agreement his terms).
The reasoning for this is that the seller was originally in the best legal position, as the drafter of the agreement to impose any terms he wishes to avoid losses.

user9929: It all depends on the what was the base-currency of the item when it was sold.  That is what should be refunded.
If it is not clear what the base currency was, then the one approach would be to simply reverse the steps of the exact same transaction.

user21081: It doesn't matter what the currency you paid in is worth now compared to other currencies, I guess that's the problem of a volatile currency.
For example: If from here in the UK I bought something in USD for $30 and in 2 weeks I have that item refunded, I would expect to get $30 USD back, the GBP amount of money that actually leaves and arrives in my GBP bank account may well be different.
it's also not unfair, the person refunding you is not giving you back any more than you gave them, it's just what they are giving you back is now worth more.

user85: 
If BTC is a currency then this is an easy question. I should be refunded what I paid, in the currency in which I paid it.

Really? So if the Bitcoin system collapsed and Bitcoins had no value anymore, you wouldn't be entitled to any refund at all? That can't be right.

If a bitcoin is not currency then is it unarguably an asset. Surely in this case I have given a valuable asset to the company as my end of an implied contract for them to provide the goods. Given their failure to provide the goods, they must return the asset: not a fraction of it.

Really? So if you had traded, say, an apple for something, and then were due a refund a week later, they should give you the same apple? That can't be right.
You're entitled to a refund of equal value.
There's a reason it must be this way -- any other rule allows people to profit from their bad acts. For example, say I buy something for Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin goes down, and then the vendor says "Sorry, can't ship that to you. We'll give you back the Bitcoins."
If you want to profit from the appreciation in Bitcoins, you must also take the risk that you will lose if their value depreciates.

Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making that profit myself.

They didn't prevent you from making that profit. At the same time you sent $75 worth to them, you could also have held $75 worth yourself. All you lost was the use of $75 for the time they held the money, which is a loss traditionally borne by the consumer, even if the vendor doesn't perform.
Also, your rule would make it basically impossible for vendors to accept payments in things like Bitcoins. They'd be vulnerable to customers returning things if the price of Bitcoin went up, and their customers would fear that the vendor might renege if the price goes down. That's no good for anyone.

user21085: Was there a sales contract?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_accept_Bitcoin,_for_small_businesses#Contract points out the value of specifying the refund policy in such a contract.
(Personally I'd think this was a USD purchase, quoted in USD, to be refunded in USD, irrespective of how the value was transferred. But IANAL, and I'm not even American.)

user12034: 
Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this.

If you hold the bitcoins while the value goes up, you are the one entitled to profit from it, because you also risk holding while the value drops, and then you're the one stuck with the loss.
Imagine the 10,000 BTC pizza transaction were refunded now: would the purchaser be entitled to 10,000 BTC, or only the value of two pizzas today? If he were really entitled to the 10,000 BTC, that would also open up the door for fraud in the form of "buy something with BTC, if the exchange rate goes up, return it for a refund in BTC".
You should be entitled to a refund of the same real purchasing power of what you paid them. With USD, this is usually negligible (actually ~2%/year because of inflation; I could see you arguing that you should get a $76.50 value refund to account for the dropping value of fiat), so it makes sense to refund the exact amount you paid. With Bitcoin, the easiest way to track this over any non-trivial period of time is by referring back to its fiat value.

user-1: A refund should be issued using the same payment method that was used at the time of purchase.
This also serves an anti-fraud measure for the cases where a purchase was made on a stolen medium (eg a credit card) but the scammers request a refund in a different medium (eg cash) as soon as the payment goes through because all they want to do is take the money and run.
The actual value of a late refund should be defined by the merchant's base currency.
For brick and mortar stores dealing with fiat money this is easily defined by their geographical location (unless there is more than one valid currencies at the same physical location, as is the case for example with Malta). The same stands for online stores with a physical location. If everything happens online then a fair approach would be to issue a refund at the exact amount of the exact payment medium that was used at the time of the purchase. The latter can be problematic when dealing with currencies that have a volatile behavior against major currencies, for as long as it lasts; the antidote is diversification.

user9382: 
I made a payment to a company for a product more than a year ago in
  bitcoin. The amount that I paid then was equivalent to $75. Now the
  company has failed to provide the product and they and I both agree
  that I'm owed a refund. However, we disagree on the means.
The company wants to refund me - in bitcoin if I wish it - to the
  value of $75 of today's money. It seems to me though that I should be
  refunded what I paid: i.e. the same BTC value that I paid. The value
  of bitcoin has increased substantially since I made my original
  payment, meaning that the BTC amount I paid then is now worth 5-6
  times more.

This is at complete odds with what you've just said; you say you paid $75 in Bitcoin. But you want $375-$450 refunded to you because the exchange rate is in your favour. Would you feel the same way if exchange rate was not in your favour? Undoubtedly, no.

I appreciate that I'm not exactly neutral in this, so I'd like to know
  what others think. Am I being reasonable? If I am, do I have a legal
  leg to stand on? ... I think that, regardless of the legal side, it's
  fair for me to receive a full refund.

I believe so too. 

Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit
  from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit
  from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making
  that profit myself.

Forgive the acerbic response but I'm somewhat taken-aback that a sizable number feels Bitcoin is a currency when it suits, but an investment at other times, and at no time does the rationale stay consistent unless "someone is making a profit". That's what businesses do. But let's take Cointerra for example; they're bankrupt because they took orders when BTC was $750 and now repaying at $350 has destroyed them. So not all businesses are rolling the dice and winning.
You paid $75, you're owed $75 in refund.
I'm no legal expert, and no one here likely is, so it's certainly an opinion-based question.
EDIT: I'm not unsympathetic to customers being given the raw end of the deal in Bitcoin refunds. For example, BFL acted horrendously. I certainly think deliberate exchange tricks in the company's favor are wrong; though it all comes down to the terms agreed, and more opaquely, opinion.

user21087: I am not a lawyer, but...
The Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
In the USA all monetary debts can be paid in US dollars.
Second, while bitcoin is legally a payment method in the US, it does not have legal status as a currency. In the eyes of the law it's almost certain that the company will only be required to send you the original USD price of the item that you paid, regardless of the method of transfer. Legally speaking, you paid dollars through bitcoin, and the firm will return your USD, using the bitcoin payment method if you so wish. They also won't have to refund any expenses you incurred to get the money to them, like driving money, bid/ask spread you paid to buy BTC, PayPal fees, etc. 
Btw, the original price was listed in US dollars, right? Not BTC. 
I'd love to hear a small claims judge berate you for trying to, how can we say this, 
enjoy risk-free speculative gains through the abuse of company refund policies.
Indeed if this unethical method worked, I could always use BTC to buy something with a money back guarantee, and if BTC went up a lot, just ask for my BTC back and cash in! If BTC didn't rise, I'd just keep the goods I'd originally bought, or maybe ask for my refund in US dollars, Swiss francs, gold bullion, IMF special drawing rights, or maybe even hugs...

8788: <p>This is, I suppose, a legal question so I should point out that I'm most interested in US and European law. </p>

<p>I made a payment to a company for a product more than a year ago in bitcoin. The amount that I paid then was equivalent to $75. Now the company has failed to provide the product and they and I both agree that I'm owed a refund. However, we disagree on the means. </p>

<p>The company wants to refund me - in bitcoin if I wish it - to the value of $75 of today's money. It seems to me though that I should be refunded what I paid: i.e. the same BTC value that I paid. The value of bitcoin has increased substantially since I made my original payment, meaning that the BTC amount I paid then is now worth 5-6 times more.</p>

<p>I happen to know (through their blog posts) that the company in question does keep stocks of bitcoin rather than converting them to a fiat currency, so they <em>have</em> benefited from this. That said, I don't think it should matter either way. </p>

<h2>My logic</h2>

<p>You can consider bitcoin in one of two ways: a) a currency or b) not a currency. The conclusion is the same either way. Let's explore both:</p>

<h3>a) BTC is a currency</h3>

<p>If BTC is a currency then this is an easy question. I should be refunded what I paid, in the currency in which I paid it. </p>

<h3>b) BTC is not a currency</h3>

<p>If a bitcoin is not currency then is it unarguably an asset. Surely in this case I have given a valuable asset to the company as my end of an implied contract for them to provide the goods. Given their failure to provide the goods, they must return the asset: not a fraction of it. </p>

<h2>Fairness</h2>

<p>I think that, regardless of the legal side, it's fair for me to receive a full refund. Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making that profit myself. </p>

<p>I appreciate that I'm not exactly neutral in this, so I'd like to know what others think. Am I being reasonable? If I am, do I have a legal leg to stand on?</p>

<h2>Edit:</h2>

<p>Having read through the responses, they seem to have one or both of two themes.</p>

<ol>
<li>"The price wasn't in BTC, it was in dollars with the option to pay this via bitcoin."</li>
<li>"Being able to claim a refund of the original BTC amount would open the door to risk-free speculation."</li>
</ol>

<p>For the first, this is open to interpretation. If I was being pernickety, I'd probably say this was down to the wording of the sale. However I agree that - practically - it's pretty obvious that $75 was the price and BTC was a payment method, along with Visa, Paypal etc. </p>

<p>The concept of "legal tender" is one that was raised too. For something to be "legal tender'' means that one may not refuse an offer to pay a debt with that currency. It doesn't talk about refunds though: if I'm owed €1000 by someone in the US then I must accept the dollar equivalent even if I'd rather Euros. This is still €1000 though, not "whatever €1000 was worth when I entered the agreement.'' </p>

<p>For the second, that is indisputable and probably represents the biggest flaw in my position. I would point out that the refund is not my doing: I would rather have received my order but the company cancelled it. However, that probably makes no difference ultimately. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the opinions. It looks like the overwhelming consensus is that I <strong>am</strong> being unreasonable, so I'll give up on my demands and accept the refund. </p>
 13950: <p>I think you would find it useful to know that PayPal honours the original exchange rate at the time of purchase (<a href="https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/helpcenter/helphub/article/?solutionId=FAQ1835&amp;topicID=RESTORING_ACCOUNT_BALANCE_HELPHUB&amp;m=TCI" rel="nofollow">see here</a>).</p>

<p>This is the behaviour I would expect if not otherwise stated in the Terms and Conditions of the vendor. You attempted to make an exchange of your Bitcoins in return for an item, the item was never received therefore the Bitcoins should be returned.</p>

<p>The price was in Bitcoins, because you paid in Bitcoins therefore the company took Bitcoins off you and not the equivalent in another currency. Whether the company sets the value of Bitcoins based against their exchange rate with another currency is entirely irrelevant, you did not pay using that currency.</p>

<p>Quite simply no exchange ever occurred here, you paid in Bitcoins, you will recieve Bitcoins back, I don't see how the vendor has any right to adjust the number of Bitcoins it will return because the market is favourable to do so. You swapped those Bitcoins for an item, not $75, you didn't receive the item. Simple.</p>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong></p>

<p>There seems to be some misunderstanding related to the fact that the vendor is situated in the US and that USD must be accepted (others have stated, I can't guarantee this).</p>

<p>What the law does not state is the amount of USD required to settle a debt, all it is saying is that a dollar equivalent must be provided. The debt here is 1 bitcoin, and the dollar equivalent is clearly not $75.</p>

<p>Please stop calling bitcoins a method of payment and not a currency. They are not a method; direct debit, standing order and bank transfer are all methods of payment, bitcoin is a currency in this regard as it is an asset that the vendor is willing to accept a quantity of in exchange for their goods. Bitcoins are the input to the method in this regard.</p>

<p>Many of you even state that bitcoin is an accepted currency by currency exchanges. Yet go on to state that it is just a method of payment later. You can call it skeumorphism by referring to your bitcoin cache as a wallet, but everywhere else we are treating this thing like a currency, if we then want to claim it isn't is it really so surprising that is as volatile as is?</p>

<p>Volatility is caused by uncertainty, and this is a prime example of why people are uncertain about bitcoin. There's examples of extremely volatile major government backed currencies out there, I don't see how volatility is an argument against its status.</p>
 21108: <p>I agree with George Reith. </p>

<p>"I don't see how the vendor has any right to adjust the number of Bitcoins it will return because the market is favourable to do so. "</p>

<p>However, if this was a matter of doing what is morally correct, what do you think is the right thing to ask for in return?  The $75 you paid in bitcoin, or the amount of bitcoin you paid to accommodate the $75.  As said but to reverse whats being said in this debate, and make it glaringly clear, if the amount had lowered where 1 bitcoin = $75 on day of the purchase, but then today 1 bitcoin = only $0.25   What do you think said company would do then? Do you think they would refund the sale in $75 USD?  No, I think THEY would then reverse the bitcoin transaction and not lose $74.75 since business is business which is about making money, not losing it.  With that same logic, since that's precisely what the company in question would have done, the buyer has a right demand a refund in whichever currency they choose.  Why?  Because the customer is always right, and that's also good business.  What if the name of this company got out about how they failed to follow through both without a product AND without a valid a refund.  That can potentially lose them lots more than $75 or $475.  Again, use the logic they would, and defend your position that you have the right to ask for your $0.25 back as much as you can ask for your $4,000.75.  They would have done the same to you, but you are the customer, so ask to be treated fairly as such. </p>

<p>(I really just want to see the guy get his nice bitcoin markup the way the end user should from the frustration of the argument in the first place.  I mean the guys handle is CharlieB like Charlie Bucket for crying out loud.)</p>
 21163: <p>If you pay X amount of bitcoins you should get back the exact same amount regardless of its market value. This is no different that with any other currencies. The value of the dollar or/and the Europe, for example, also fluctuate on a daily basis and stores don't go around refunding people based of their absolute value for a particular day. What this store is doing is unscrupulous and it sets out a very bad precedent. If I anyone can have the choice to cancel transactions because they don't benefit from them because of the increase/decrease of the valuation of the currency used, then this will open a pandora's box. Especially with currencies that fluctuate dramatically like bitcoins sometimes does. If I lend you $100 when the value of the dollar in the market is 0.85 cents, you still have to pay me back $100 even if at the time for you to repay me the value of the dollar is more or is less. That's the way we have always done it so I don't see why we should start treating bitcoins transactions differently. You paid X amount of currency Y therefore you should get the same exact amount of X of Y back. Moreover, if the transaction had happened the way it was supposed to have happened, the vendor would've been the loser in the sense that he sold a product for what consumers were willing to pay that specific day but later on, for normal economic reasons that define the laws of demand and supply, that product's price went up and now people are willing to pay more for that product. Again, by allowing this merchant to cancel or not to cancel based on either, prices fluctuations, or/and, the value of the currency used days after the original transaction has happened, would set a precedent that could mess up our way of doing business transactions. You should fight this guy all the way to the end. Moreover, I would strongly suggest that you share this merchant's name with us so we can all keep an eye opened for cancellations of this type.</p>
 38836: <p>Obviously, this response is 3 years too late, but...</p>

<p>1) this kind of nonsense is exactly on of the reasons vendors hesitate to use BTC. </p>

<p>2) ask yourself this, what form would you want to get refunded if BTC exchange rate was down rather than up.  If you can honestly say that you would be happy with BTC return, then you are right to feel indigent about the situation, otherwise, cut the vendor some slack.</p>

<p>3) in that the vendor's <em>de facto</em> product price is USD, in fairness (legal or not), their refund should be in USD.  when they start pricing in BTC, then in fairness, you refund should be BTC.</p>

<p>4) you should be happy that they don't refund in BS "store credit"</p>
 21094: <p>The answer would depend on where the transaction took place.  If it was in person in the US (people can use BitCoin to buy in some stores now), the business is legally able to pay in US currency, $75.  The note on money "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" is legal language stating that you <em>must</em> accept it within the US.  If they pay in anything else, that's fine, but they have to agree with you on what the value of another currency is on that day.  If it was an online transaction in another country, say, the UK, then the contract law of that country would apply.</p>

<p>The question of whether BitCoin is a currency or an asset really is moot because for one, debts are based on a currency neutral value unless specified otherwise in writing, and for another, US currency is not an "official" currency outside the US either (although, exactly like BitCoin, it is accepted as having value abroad), it all depends on what country you're in.  The whole point of BitCoin is that it <em>is</em> a currency that is not tied to a country.  If you're paying in BitCoin, you're accepting that it is a currency.</p>

<p>Long story short, if it was a US transaction, they can pay you $75 in dollars if they really want to, so I wouldn't push anything else.</p>
 21161: <p>You guys are all approaching this from the wrong angle. Property and contract law make it pretty straightforward.</p>

<p>The answer depends a lot on the terms of the sales contract.  Specifically, how much liability the seller has for failure to deliver.  Absent an agreement to the contrary, the seller is liable for any damages caused by failure to ship/deliver (Depending on when transfer of ownership takes place) the item, in the condition specified, by the date specified.  </p>

<p>For example, if the item you ordered was something you needed to fulfill a contract with someone else, and their cancelling of the order caused you to default on that contract, absent a different agreement, they would be liable for your inability to fulfill your obligations.</p>

<p>In this case, the seller breached the contract, so ultimately the seller is liable for damages caused by said breach.  That would include loss of opportunities and/or changes in value of the items exchanged. (This has a big pile of common-law precedent.  Bitcoin is a new transfer method, not a new concept in property law.  If it was in dollars they would, technically, owe you interest, it's just that dollars are stable enough that that's not usually a significant sum, and most people don't worry about it when this kind of thing happens.)</p>

<p>Now, everyone else's answers about legal tender and such do apply:  You can't force them to pay you in Bitcoin.  They can pay you the equivalent value in dollars if they choose.  But there is good cause and good precedent for damages, so they may well owe you the full, current value of the bitcoins.</p>

<p>If the transaction is handled by them directly and not via a payment processor (who, presumably, performed their job correctly) then you have another avenue as well.  The contract was never completed as agreed, and so the bitcoins in question are, legally, still yours.  They can either give them back to you, or pay you for their current value at time of contract breach (plus interest if applicable)</p>

<p>All of this <em>is</em>, however, subject to the terms and conditions of the sales contract, which was probably presented to you at time of sale, and may well (very likely did) specifically disclaim this portion of their liability.  (You <em>did</em> read the entire thing, right?  And you kept a copy, right?)</p>

<p>Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.  I did, however, get good grades in my business law summary courses, which covered property and contract law rather nicely. </p>

<p>Note for the "risk free speculation" commentators: This cannot be reliably used for that, as it is dependent on the seller violating the terms of the sales agreement.  Further, if the seller discovered that you were doing it on purpose, that would be negotiation in bad faith on the buyer's part and would shift the liability the other way. How to handle it in the case of the return policy is another matter, and should be stated in the sales agreement. If not, then it could end up going to court for arbitration, and the ruling would likely depend on the reason for the return and evidence (or lack thereof) of the buyer making the deal in bad faith.</p>
 21166: <p>Perkins is perhaps the closest to the mark that I can see.</p>

<p>But again a slight issue. The core of the issue comes from contract law.</p>

<p><strong><em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow">Contra proferentem (interpretation against the draftsman)</a></em></strong></p>

<p>Most of the answers here state that it is unfair that the OP in effect is now allowed "risk free speculation". However that is actually EXACTLY what the law says.</p>

<p>Given that the OP does not explicitly state in that there is a clause in the original transaction determining the method of refund, given that the transaction failed. Then the OP is ALLOWED to interpret the contract in any damned way he feels like (assuming it is a VALID and legal interpretation). The fact that his interpretation is governed on which way the USDBTC is irrelevant and moot, the seller (as the drafter of the agreement, should have specified in the agreement his terms).</p>

<p>The reasoning for this is that the seller was originally in the best legal position, as the drafter of the agreement to impose any terms he wishes to avoid losses.</p>
 9929: <p>It all depends on the what was the base-currency of the item when it was sold.  That is what should be refunded.
If it is not clear what the base currency was, then the one approach would be to simply reverse the steps of the exact same transaction.</p>
 21081: <p>It doesn't matter what the currency you paid in is worth now compared to other currencies, I guess that's the problem of a volatile currency.</p>

<p>For example: If from here in the UK I bought something in USD for $30 and in 2 weeks I have that item refunded, I would expect to get $30 USD back, the GBP amount of money that actually leaves and arrives in my GBP bank account may well be different.</p>

<p>it's also not unfair, the person refunding you is not giving you back any more than you gave them, it's just what they are giving you back is now worth more.</p>
 85: <blockquote>
  <p>If BTC is a currency then this is an easy question. I should be refunded what I paid, in the currency in which I paid it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Really? So if the Bitcoin system collapsed and Bitcoins had no value anymore, you wouldn't be entitled to any refund at all? That can't be right.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If a bitcoin is not currency then is it unarguably an asset. Surely in this case I have given a valuable asset to the company as my end of an implied contract for them to provide the goods. Given their failure to provide the goods, they must return the asset: not a fraction of it.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Really? So if you had traded, say, an apple for something, and then were due a refund a week later, they should give you the same apple? That can't be right.</p>

<p>You're entitled to a refund of equal value.</p>

<p>There's a reason it must be this way -- any other rule allows people to profit from their bad acts. For example, say I buy something for Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin goes down, and then the vendor says "Sorry, can't ship that to you. We'll give you back the Bitcoins."</p>

<p>If you want to profit from the appreciation in Bitcoins, you must also take the risk that you will lose if their value depreciates.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making that profit myself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They didn't prevent you from making that profit. At the same time you sent $75 worth to them, you could also have held $75 worth yourself. All you lost was the use of $75 for the time they held the money, which is a loss traditionally borne by the consumer, even if the vendor doesn't perform.</p>

<p>Also, your rule would make it basically impossible for vendors to accept payments in things like Bitcoins. They'd be vulnerable to customers returning things if the price of Bitcoin went up, and their customers would fear that the vendor might renege if the price goes down. That's no good for anyone.</p>
 21085: <p>Was there a sales contract?</p>

<p><a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_accept_Bitcoin,_for_small_businesses#Contract">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_accept_Bitcoin,_for_small_businesses#Contract</a> points out the value of specifying the refund policy in such a contract.</p>

<p>(Personally I'd think this was a USD purchase, quoted in USD, to be refunded in USD, irrespective of how the value was transferred. But IANAL, and I'm not even American.)</p>
 12034: <blockquote>
  <p>Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit from this.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>If you hold the bitcoins while the value goes up, you are the one entitled to profit from it, because you also risk holding while the value drops, and then you're the one stuck with the loss.</strong></p>

<p>Imagine the <a href="http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-pizza-day-celebrating-pizza-bought-10000-btc/">10,000 BTC pizza</a> transaction were refunded now: would the purchaser be entitled to 10,000 BTC, or only the value of two pizzas today? If he were really entitled to the 10,000 BTC, that would also open up the door for fraud in the form of "buy something with BTC, if the exchange rate goes up, return it for a refund in BTC".</p>

<p>You should be entitled to a refund of the same real purchasing power of what you paid them. With USD, this is usually negligible (actually ~2%/year because of inflation; I could see you arguing that you should get a $76.50 value refund to account for the dropping value of fiat), so it makes sense to refund the exact amount you paid. With Bitcoin, the easiest way to track this over any non-trivial period of time is by referring back to its fiat value.</p>
 -1: <p>A refund should be issued using the same payment method that was used at the time of purchase.</p>

<p>This also serves an anti-fraud measure for the cases where a purchase was made on a stolen medium (eg a credit card) but the scammers request a refund in a different medium (eg cash) as soon as the payment goes through because all they want to do is take the money and run.</p>

<p>The actual value of a late refund should be defined by the merchant's base currency.</p>

<p>For brick and mortar stores dealing with fiat money this is easily defined by their geographical location (unless there is more than one valid currencies at the same physical location, as is the case for example with Malta). The same stands for online stores with a physical location. If everything happens online then a fair approach would be to issue a refund at the exact amount of the exact payment medium that was used at the time of the purchase. The latter can be problematic when dealing with currencies that have a volatile behavior against major currencies, for as long as it lasts; the antidote is diversification.</p>
 9382: <blockquote>
  <p>I made a payment to a company for a product more than a year ago in
  bitcoin. The amount that I paid then was equivalent to $75. Now the
  company has failed to provide the product and they and I both agree
  that I'm owed a refund. However, we disagree on the means.</p>
  
  <p>The company wants to refund me - in bitcoin if I wish it - to the
  value of $75 of today's money. It seems to me though that I should be
  refunded what I paid: i.e. the same BTC value that I paid. The value
  of bitcoin has increased substantially since I made my original
  payment, meaning that the BTC amount I paid then is now worth 5-6
  times more.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is at complete odds with what you've just said; you say you paid $75 in Bitcoin. But you want $375-$450 refunded to you because the exchange rate is in your favour. Would you feel the same way if exchange rate was not in your favour? Undoubtedly, no.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I appreciate that I'm not exactly neutral in this, so I'd like to know
  what others think. Am I being reasonable? If I am, do I have a legal
  leg to stand on? ... I think that, regardless of the legal side, it's
  fair for me to receive a full refund.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I believe so too. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Given that bitcoin has increased in value, one of us has to profit
  from this. It seems very unfair to me that the company should profit
  from their failure, whilst at the same time preventing me from making
  that profit myself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Forgive the acerbic response but I'm somewhat taken-aback that a sizable number feels Bitcoin is a currency when it suits, but an investment at other times, and at no time does the rationale stay consistent unless "someone is making a profit". That's what businesses do. But let's take <a href="http://www.coindesk.com/cointerra-mediation-class-action-lawsuit/">Cointerra for example</a>; they're bankrupt because they took orders when BTC was $750 and now repaying at $350 has destroyed them. So not all businesses are rolling the dice and winning.</p>

<p>You paid $75, you're owed $75 in refund.</p>

<p>I'm no legal expert, and no one here likely is, so it's certainly an opinion-based question.</p>

<p>EDIT: I'm not unsympathetic to customers being given the raw end of the deal in Bitcoin refunds. For example, BFL acted horrendously. I certainly think deliberate exchange tricks in the company's favor are wrong; though it all comes down to the terms agreed, and more opaquely, opinion.</p>
 21087: <p>I am not a lawyer, but...</p>

<p>The Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."</p>

<p>In the USA all monetary debts can be paid in US dollars.</p>

<p>Second, while bitcoin is legally a payment method in the US, it does not have legal status as a currency. In the eyes of the law it's almost certain that the company will only be required to send you the original USD price of the item that you paid, regardless of the method of transfer. Legally speaking, you paid dollars through bitcoin, and the firm will return your USD, using the bitcoin payment method if you so wish. They also won't have to refund any expenses you incurred to get the money to them, like driving money, bid/ask spread you paid to buy BTC, PayPal fees, etc. </p>

<p>Btw, the original price was listed in US dollars, right? Not BTC. </p>

<p>I'd love to hear a small claims judge berate you for trying to, how can we say this, 
enjoy risk-free speculative gains through the abuse of company refund policies.</p>

<p>Indeed if this unethical method worked, I could always use BTC to buy something with a money back guarantee, and if BTC went up a lot, just ask for my BTC back and cash in! If BTC didn't rise, I'd just keep the goods I'd originally bought, or maybe ask for my refund in US dollars, Swiss francs, gold bullion, IMF special drawing rights, or maybe even hugs...</p>
