I really, really hate blaming the OP. But this statement just jumped out at me:

"This Pizza Hut has NEVER got an order right, and they have been the one we used for 20 years because of how close they are."

Let's say, conservatively, you've gone to this Pizza Hut twice a year. That means, if I'm to believe you, this place screwed up 40 consecutive orders (because they have NEVER gotten an order right). Really? They messed up 40 times and you still went back?

Like I said, I hate blaming the OP, but I think in this case, some of the blame lies with you. If a place messes up your order three or four times in a row, that shows you there's systemic problem with that restaurant and you shouldn't go back. The fact that they screwed up 40 times in a row and you kept going back for more, well, I don't know how you can reasonably say that part of it isn't your own fault.

Of course, there's a chance that you've done the only thing I hate more than blaming the OP. That maybe you've exaggerated the level of bad service to get sympathy and make the Pizza Hut look worse that it really is.

Do you have a certain amount of money stashed away for a rainy day? If so, does that make it ok to steal some from you because you have a built in buffer?

Are you implying this gives you permission not to point out an error in your favor?

If so, perhaps BOA is right not to point out the error.

I can hear the conversation now.

Bank Manager 1: Uh oh, we made a mistake and actually owe vastrightwing $300 in interest.

Bank Manager 2: Who cares, it's not like vastrightwing would have told us if it was the other way around.

Sometimes being moral means being the bigger person and doing the right thing because it is right.

Call the store or go back. This isn't like the grocer missed a pack of gum at the checkout. This was a pretty large amount - and you should have caught it at the register (I know you were on your phone, but you shouldn't have been doing that, it's not a good excuse).

If you don't want to, then get on with life. But the next time you get overcharged or ripped off or have a bad consumer experience, just remember how willing you were to accept a $143 mistake in your favor. I hope you'll get on with life in that situation too.

For everyone who thinks it's fine because he now has 13 years of experience, look at it another way. This guy did not have the proper license and proper training. Sure after 13 years he's doing fine, but how about the first time he took the controls without the proper training? If someone told you that was the situation, would you want you and your loved ones to get on that plane?

Nothing bad happened this time, but handing down no penalty at all would only encourage every moron with a dream of flying to try a similar scheme. My guess is that not all of them would end so well.

That's why I hate it when I got out and order a coke and someone brings me a can of coke and charges me $2. At least put it in a glass so I can tell myself I can't buy the EXACT same thing, packaging and all, at the store across the street for $1.

So I've seen a few posts here (and in other articles) where some genius tries to determine exactly how much profit Taco Bell (or Best Buy or McDonald's) is making from some sale. It usually involves adding up how much that person thinks each element of the meal costs the company to buy from vendors, subtracting the cost to the consumer and then saying "Tada, they make $0.49 net profit." When dealing with restaurants someone will always chime in with "Soda is pure profit."

Unfortunately this person almost never takes into account things like equipment, labor, facilities, utilities, taxes and marketing. All that stuff costs money too. So this is just your friendly consumerist reminder that just because it costs Taco Bell $1 to buy the ingredients for a value meal that they sell for $2, it does not mean they've made a $1 profit.

Ah, so that's the opposite of "If you're too fat to fly, don't fly."

This just in, woman doesn't understand how the internet works! Consumerist has the scoop!

I think it matters a lot. If this upsell attempt was so egregious that it needed to be posted to Consumerist, then I assume that one wouldn't need to multiply how long it really took by a factor of 20.

Basically every time someone writes in with a complaint that includes wild exaggerations, it makes me wonder what else about the post is a lie. Maybe there were only two upsell attempts and not three. Maybe the clerk didn't really include a nasty snarl. Maybe it didn't happen at all.

If Consumerist is supposed to keep corporations honest, then why should consumers be held to a different standard? It just does everyone here a disservice and makes actual complaints harder to believe.