I take it, that it was to prevent the money from flowing out of the coffers. If you tell someone who wants a refund that they can't sell their position in line, then they would have to give the refund.
For BFL it would probably have been marginally better to arrange the customer to hand it off to someone else and take on the risk that the customer will do a Chargeback. (as long as they don't tell them that, there is only a slightly possibility.)
Now that the risk is probably too big to keep doing, they changed their policy.
Now they likely tell the BFL customer that they can resell it on their own, but they will have to ship to the address of the original payment. Which pushes the risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer. Leaving BFL's hand nice and clean in the event that the reseller steals the second hand buyers money.
You can't blame them for this change, it makes perfect sense.
If things were done "right" they would just give the original buyer their money back and they would be out 1 (or more) sales. Which is inconvenient of course cause they ordered all that hardware....
This just makes my head a-splode. Do you even read what you write or do thoughts just flow out of your head and into your fingers, like a stream of consciousness thing or something?
Lets boil down what you just wrote:
1.
Customer wants to sell their orderAND2.
BFL won't change the shipping addressSO3.
Customer is advised to take delivery and send it to third partyBECAUSE4.
BFL does not want to be liable for scamsTHEREFORE5.
BFL won't refund money because they would be out more sales.WTF? Seriously, how does it even make sense? They are two completely unrelated policies and situations.
If a customer wants a refund, we issue a refund. End of story. If a customer wants to sell their device, then they need to take responsibility for it as we don't have the man power, nor do we want to be liable for scams. What does one have to do with the other? Absolutely nothing, yet in typical PuertoLibre fashion, you try to throw out FUD and paint BFL as somehow being evil and we are scamming by conflating two unrelated issues. You go on to highlight the fact BFL "pushes the risk of the sale from BFL to the reseller and the buyer." Well no shit, Sherlock. What company do you know is willing to shoulder the responsibility for third party sales, especially in a high scam environment? You act like this is some revelation and that BFL is just crazy evil for doing this.
Do you seriously wonder why I call you an idiot?