The hint and implication above is that I am at fault, and maybe even was doing something nefarious, and that Samsung is not. That reasoning is disturbing.
I'm sorry, but that's not just the implication, that is the reality - and by that I mean the fault, not that you did anything nefarious. From a legal standpoint and from a common sense standpoint, Samsung's expectations were made clear and you chose not to follow them and/or when confronted with confusion, decided to take no action, rather than to proactively try to troubleshoot the issue despite the clear indication from the agreement that it was your responsibility to ensure they received it within 15 days of you receiving the new device.
I don't think anyone is accusing you of trying to rip off Samsung - it seems pretty reasonable to believe that you didn't know what to do, however that does not move the onus from you to Samsung to attempt to resolve the situation. The idea that Samsung is at fault here is perpostuous, so I cannot agree that it is disturbing that people are understanding of Samsung, a company, and their actions - which were following the exact process that they had spelled out in their agreement with you.
If your boss says, "if you are on time to work tomorrow, I will give you a raise - but, if you are late, you're fired". Are you going to try to be on time? If you're on time, would you expect your boss to give you a raise or fire you? Would you be more upset if you were on time and got a raise or more upset if you were on time and got fired? Now reverse that.
When the company does exactly what they say they're going to do, and you agreed to what they say they're going to do... that's pretty much what everyone wants to happen. They keep their word, we consider that following procedure and therefore good. When that's to your benefit, it's good - but when it is to your detriment, that's not evil - it's still exactly what they are expected to do.
A final way of looking at this: They gave you money in expectation that you would give them a phone. You didn't give them a phone, so they asked for a refund. Isn't that what you would do if you gave them money and they didn't give you a phone? And if, a couple months later, they called and said, "hey we found a phone for you, do you want to give us all your money again?" Would you want to? I wouldn't, I'd be pissed that I gave them money, and they didn't give me a phone or even call me to let me know they couldn't find one to send me, etc. Just as I imagine that at this point, they're no longer interested in buying your phone, which they only wanted in a) a timely manner and b) part of an agreement to encourage you to buy something else from them.
So everything up until this point, yes, this is your fault - even if it was accidental.
I wonder if the same posters above would blame rape victims for encouraging the behavior of their perpetrator, even a little?
As to this little nugget? No, absolutely not. That's an absolutely ridiculous, childish, mean spirited and despicable comment and is completely unworthy of you. People try to help you understand what's going on and so you switch into insulting them, accusing them of victim shaming the victims of one of the most horrible crimes imaginable? You consider that to be reasonable? Do you think what happened "to you" - a company getting a refund on money they fronted you for a deal you didn't honor - is comparable to physically and psychologically assaulting a person? That's realistic to you?
So let's try to make this clear.
A company financially holding you accountable for a financial agreement that you made, that you consented to, is not in any way shape or form, comparable to finding and preying on a weaker person without any form of agreement or consent, and raping them. That that BS with you and get it tf out of here. That type of comment is completely unwelcome here, as is the hostility that such a weak comment conveys.
You have your answers, the rest is between you and Samsung and whether or not they're willing to entertain another agreement with you.