[quote name='turls']goldbean, why don't you point me to one case where a web site was forced to provide a product that was a situation even remotely similar to this. Because you probably can't, even though this has been happening for almost 10 years.
Until I see that, its all theoretical.[/quote]
Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of cases brought are ever resolved by the court--the vast majority are settled prior to judgment. In addition, only a miniscule percentage of cases (and hardly any small-claims cases addressing circumstances like those here) are ever resolved through a written judgment. So there are very few "cases I can point you to," because they simply aren't memorialized and categorized for historical review (the results of such an effort would be overwhelmingly voluminous).
However, here are just a few examples:
In February 1999, customers brought a class-action suit against buy.com for failing to meet the terms of a contract, where buy.com claimed there was a pricing error but confirmed the orders, even though some customers' credit cards had not been charged.
http://news.com.com/2100-1017-222911.html?tag=rn. There, buy.com claimed a $400 pricing error (~$560 v. ~$160)--far greater in terms of dollars and percentage than the alleged error here. The customers involved in the class-action suit successfully negotiated a $575,000 settlement. Other customers involved in the same deal sued in small claims court and won on the theory that the e-mail order confirmation they received constituted acceptance of their offer and a binding contract.
The .TV company is an e-tailer that sells .tv domain names. Two years ago, it claimed a pricing mistake and related technical error when it sold the golf.tv domain online for about $1 million less than .TV intended to offer it ($1,010 v. ~$1 million) and tried to rescind the deal. The plaintiff argued that the automated e-mail order confirmation he received from .TV constituted a legally binding contract. The court agreed with the plaintiff, concluding that the e-mail constituted a legally enforceable contract (even though no money or property had changed hands).
http://www.haledorr.com/files/upload/lim_tvcorp.pdf.
I am personally aware of a number of other successful claims made by plaintiffs in similar circumstances, though none was reported in a published opinion.
[quote name='turls']There is no way a company would leave itself open to anything binding coming out of a first-level CSRs mouth, if that's one of your main points, and is the only thing I've noticed that is even remotely unique about this fiasco.[/quote]
First of all, that's not one of my "main points" (that's why I put it in parentheses)--it simply confirms and bolsters other independently sufficient information. Moreover, principals (companies) can most certainly be bound by their agents (first-level CSRs), though agency liability is unnecessary to the breach of contract claims here, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on it.
[quote name='turls']And I'm not arguing this saying it isn't worth pushing, I wish people would push it until they are blue in the face. But I'm not wasting my time because it is futile.
I am only arguing this from the point of actually getting the game and bongos for $30. The other stuff is irrelevant to me.[/quote]
It may be futile for you (and others) practically, but it certainly is not futile legally.
... 
...Lucy's got some explaining to do. After their standard issue garble guess I'll be forced to cancel as well. 
...Interesting how Some have got that AUTOMATIC DEFAULT CANCEL e-mail where as I forsee troubled waters ahead to kill my order.
... Those bastards. .....