my understanding is that there used to be a pretty prevalent scam in which a firm would send something of value unsolicited and then bill the recipient. When the recipient did not pay, the firm would harrasss the recipient and do whatever nasty thing they could to get the money. If you were someone that sold stuff like that from Fingerhut, i.e. marking up just 10000%, one could get a pretty penny if even 10% of the recipients were extorted to pay.
To combat this, in the US there are laws, as cited below, that pretty much give huge right to the recipient of unsolicited merchandise. There are two exceptions. Merchandise that is sent for inspection is to be returned. For instance I used to get calls from firms that would offer to send me stuff for free and if I liked it they would then bill the company. The assumption was that the purchasing department in a moderately sized organization would pay for stuff management wanted without too much checking or hassle. The law still provides a level of protection as the merchandise can be returned and the time frame is not set in stone.
My feeling is that, at least in the US, the recipient should be protected. Look at it this way. I order a box of pens from office depot. Instead of pens, the send me a printer. It could be that someone in my office steals it. Am I then liable for the printer?
Yes, you're liable. The difference is that this isn't unsolicited merchandise, this is incorrectly shipped merchandise in response to a solicitation. Rather than meeting the unsolicited merchandise law, this would fall squarely under the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in some form in every state. Specifically, this is a shipment by the seller of non-conforming goods, which the seller promptly identified. Under UCC 2-508, the seller can notify the buyer of his intention to cure and make a conforming delivery or repudiate the contract. In such cases, the buyer may charge reasonable storage or disposal fees, but that's it.
Consider: the UCC, as well as contract law in general and dating back hundreds of years, was written to protect the ordinary dealings of merchants with each other and merchants with the public. Mistakes happen, everyone knows that... A business shouldn't be unreasonably punished because of a mistake, or else, out of fear of such mistakes, transactions grind to a snail's pace with everyone seeking reassurances in triplicate of every maneuver. This is actually one of the first things they drum into us in contract law that is different from the layman's expectation: normally, we think of breaching a contract as being a terrible thing that leaves you liable to all sorts of bad results; in reality, breaching a contract is merely an economic decision, and the courts will not bankrupt a company in punishment for making a sound business decision of terminating a losing contract, particularly if the other side knows that there's something inequitable. Essentially, tort or criminal law is all about "you wronged me"; contract law is all about "economic efficiency" - the concept of punitive damages only exist in very, very extreme cases.
Here, the merchant is entitled to their Vitas back and owes each buyer the game, any shipping costs, and potentially even reasonable storage fees - which, for a single Vita, are going to be negligible. And this is the way it should be, unless we want every purchase that's not an in-person exchange of goods to come with ten pages of contracts to sign.