I agree; shouting at "bean-counters" because they say "justify buying the more expensive; you're an engineer, you tell me why it's the best thing to do" is silly. They are doing their job, it's yours to know why the expensive ones are better and tell them.
If they don't listen, or the accountable manager (it's his/her decision, not the accountant's) doesn't listen, then that's wrong. But that's not often the case in well-run organisations.
But there's a lot of expensive rubbish requested and bought just because "if it costs a lot it must be better". I have often wondered if Snap-on doesn't fall into that category. Is there any tangible evidence (comparative failure rates, comparative manufacturing defects and so on) that supports the case for them? Or is it just received wisdom, that hasn't caught up with newer and better manufacturers?
I'm with Unstable Load here, I think.
Those are genuine questions; I have no ready answers!
By the way, wasn't I once told that an adjustable wrench should be thrown out of the hangar, no matter how little slack it has?