Let me give you more of a legal explanation than you have been given so far. You dealt with the merchant to order a specific computer on behalf of your employer. The computer, according to you, did not meet the requirements you gave to the seller. That is a contract issue. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the primary law that governs the sales of goods in the states that have adopted it, which is all states but Louisiana. And under the UCC when you order goods to be delivered the buyer has a right to inspect the goods upon delivery and reject them if they are nonconforming (i.e. do not meet the requirements of the contract). The seller then has the right to cure by sending the right product. If it does that then it has met the contract and owes nothing further. If the seller fails to cure then the buyer may have a good claim for breach of contract. But in contract claims generally all that may be recovered is the amount that would make the buyer whole, which is typically the price difference between the price set in the contract for the good and what the buyer had to pay to get the right item somewhere else. So if the contract price of the laptop was $1,000 and to get that exact laptop from another seller cost the buyer $1,075 then all the buyer could get in a lawsuit is the $75 difference. The whole idea of contract law is to give the parties the benefit of the bargain they struck. For the buyer, that means getting the item he wanted at the agreed price, and that $75 gets him the laptop he wanted for the agreed upon price of $1,000.
Notably, what you typically do NOT get in contract claims are what in the law are known as consequential damages. These are damages that occur because of the breach beyond simply getting what is needed to get you the benefit of the bargain you struck, which for a buyer of goods means damages other than simply getting the right item he wanted at the agreed price. Your termination because of the botched sale would be a consequential damage. And in most contract cases you won't get those if you sue for breach. The exception in some states is that if the breaching party had reason to know at the time the contract was made that the additional consequence would occur the breaching party may be liable for that consequence. So had you put the seller on notice at the time you negotiated the contract that if it screwed up the order you'd be fired then you might have had a claim if you were the actual buyer. The idea behind putting the other party on notice of the potential consequence is so that the other party can take extra care with the contract to ensure it won't get stuck being liable for that problem. If it has no idea a particular consequence will happen as a result of the breach then it is considered unfair to hold the party liable for it. If your company was the actual buyer and not you, then you run into the problem that even if the seller knew you'd get fired that's not a damage suffered by the person it is contracting with — your company — and thus there'd be nothing for which your company to sue the seller for that.
It would be different if this were a tort (negligence) claim. But the law of tort does not apply to this. It is purely a contract issue.