I get the spirit of what you are saying, but you seriously don't see the problem with the cue as pictured. It matters not one iota that it isn't typical of the makers work. The maker contracted to build a cue to the specs of the customer for a certain price. The fact that he is being offered the refund, to me, shows that the maker agreed that the cue was not up to snuff.
The cue maker certainly sounds like he is trying to make it right. All of this could have been avoided with open communication on both sides and following the rule that a deal is not finalized (meaning, don't spend the customer's money) until both parties are happy.
What if the buyer had agreed to buy the cue, the maker ships the cue, and after receiving it the buyer tells him that he needed to wait a couple months before sending payment? That cue maker would be rightfully upset. To me, it is the same thing in reverse in this scenario.
I hope this is coming to a resolution that both sides can live with. Neither party here seems malicious to me, just an unfortunate transaction.