If I was a retailer which method of distribution, handling or storing items has created a chain of events that unavoidably (apparently) has led to multiple claims, first thing I'd do is stop that chain.
Given that I, as distributor, knew about the chain of claims derived from opening multiple packages in order to complete, replace or substitute previous items of similar references, I must have been proactively prepared and professionally handled the next event by first accepting that such issues are known and that I'm offering a replacement of the whole package for another "open box", same model or ref., explaining the customer that as a result of multiple issues, I have to open a package and make sure everything goes by the book (even if that's not 100% accurate, I MUST stop the chain anyway I can WITHIN my warehouse or distribution point, not at the customer's doorstep). It is unprofessional and unacceptable to reveal such issues that are entirely the vendor's or manufacturer's distribution, package handling or storage issues using them as excuse for not providing what's established in the contract.
The second thing I obviously must be prepared to is for any type of client reacting to such issues. If a company is going to pick it's customers based on inconsistent criteria such as morality or behavior, better go run another kind of business.
It is true that any company can deny a service w/o explaining motivation. But in this case, IMHO there is a contract and the vendor must fulfill it even if the item was sold to Tarzan's Mother-In-Law, she has a tooth ache and is at his office's door ready to engage.
On the customer's part, it's not wise to name other companies, distributors or vendors which behaved differently in "comparable" scenarios. These things don't have anything to do with the particular and should never be mentioned or named for obvious reasons. It's the client's prerogative to handle the communications to the extent of his/her knowledge, social background and woke up mood. A vendor or company cannot assume that the customer must fall on some category, behave in a specific way or enroll in meditation prior to claiming issues. Welcome to the Universe of Customer Care.
If for any reason I, as an e-tailer or distributor, am having issues with a provider, believe me, the client is not the first on the list to be fired. NO WAY!. I'd seek a way to solve it with the distributor or get another one. Priority IS customer's satisfaction. Failing to recognize and be consequent to this, is culprit for many businesses' stagnation.
You can't tell a client to be patient when there's an ongoing unsolved issue.
You can't fire your client for your mistakes. (although technically you can) but this thread is one of the foreseeable consequences.
You can't fire a client just because on your personal or your company's rules of conduct, he/she is cataloged as "bad customer" while there IS an ongoing issue. You solve first and then consider firing.
This is just an opinion based on reading some of the posts, not all of them. Still, this post refers to ways of satisfactorily solving issues, not to indistinctly creating unnecessary situations between customers and vendors.
Uh, one more little thing: The customer IS the BOSS!. If for some colossal misplacement of cosmic equilibrium, there is a hint of doubt about this, put it in terms of who's paying.. then, you'll unavoidably be pointing at THE BOSS.