Except that the section in question relates to return of goods.
In this case there are no goods.
They don't have it, they even admit as much.
View attachment 1409233
No court would find for their interpretation that they can apply this to not having stock of said goods and then holding your money for 30 days (working or otherwise).
EDIT: More likely they are trying to cling to this section
View attachment 1409237
Though I must confess I wonder if the CPA or otherwise doesn't overrule this ridiculous rule.