Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] Regards, [redacted]
When the complainant's boat was shipped the subcontractor provided the wrong size canopyThe same contractor worked for the complainant at the destination after it arrivedThe complainant received exactly the boat they ordered at the cost they agreed toThe same contractor who was performing the work failed to follow the U.S.C.Gregulations in construction and instead unilaterally performed substandard construction on the boatBecause of the failure of the contractor to follow construction regulations the boat had to be made from start againAdditional repeated failures in following U.S.C.Gregulations caused repeated construction to be removed and repaired and corrected to meet regulations on construction standardsThese repeated failures by the contractor caused one and one half year delay in completing the boat for the complainantAs a result of these failures causing one year delay in completion the buyer began making repeated derogatory remarks to the seller such as "a cheat, a liar, not trustworthy and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the sellerwhich included an emphasis on the complainant's to belief they were short changed or cheated our of the money they paidWhen the seller realized the contractor had made another error the seller made the offer to swap the canvas for the correct one and would pay $and/or contribute to the shipping chargesThe ONLY response from the complainant was that the seller should first send the correct canopy then and only then would the other canopy be sent back and that the seller should pay all expensesSince the canopy the complainant wanted was already part of another customer's boat the seller had no authority to remove it to send to the complainant without replacing it one the spotFollowing the complainant's demands would mean the seller would me at the mercy of the complainant to return the canopy they had AFTER when they received another canopyDue to the recorded statements by the complainant that they believe they were cheated and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller, the seller was justified to conclude the complainant would not send back the canopy they had, or would cause some financial loss to the seller and retribution that is in line with the remarks and threats of litigation that have made repeatedlyThe seller could not accept these terms without stealing a canopy from another client, and again offered to pay $or contribute to shipping to swap canopiesThe complaintant refused to send the canopy they had both canopies at the same time where they would then decide whether to return or notSince the seller does not own the csanopy it was impossible to follow the demands of the complainant and the complainants prior statements made it likely they would not reurn the one they had if they had bothat the same timeThe seller told the complaintant they had a deadline to send back their canopy for a swap and now that dealine has passed since the other canopy is gone
December 22, 2016Dear Mr [redacted] Thank you for writing about your concern with the water taxi which you ordered from usWe are sorry to hear that the boat has not met your expectationsIt is our hope that we can address your needs and provide the best possible solution to your issue.Someone from our company will be contact with you in the coming days to discuss your concern in more detailAgain, thank you for your feedbackIt is our goal to regain you as a satisfied customer [redacted]
I am filing a new complaint against [redacted] boats and its owner, Mr [redacted] After almost a whole year of building, the water taxi our company ordered is finally ready to leave Mr [redacted] 's facilityWe payed what he asked for but felt that we were bullied into doing itMr*** [redacted] has done great injustice to us and violated commonly agreed upon ethical standards of business practiceWe agreed on the last payment after discussions through emailswe pay $5,before the shipment of the boat; we are responsible to purchase safety equipment and perform the final stability testHowever, Mr [redacted] demanded payment of $7,instead of $5,we have agreed upon, claiming that "he could not afford the discount"In fact, Mr [redacted] did not give us any discountHe has agreed to reimburse us for the price of safety equipment and partial cost of stability testWe did not think it fair and ethical for him to demand extra payment and told him soHe threatened to not deliver our boat unless we pay the $7,he askedFor the sake of our boat, which has lanquished in his facility for whole two years at the great cost of our business, we paid what he asked so we can have our boatHowever, we felt Mr [redacted] violated basic trust in business practice: blackmailing his client by withholding his client's property.The Desired Outcome is that we request the refund Mr [redacted] coerced out of us[redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I do not believe this is the factsI have offered to setup a escrew account or to have a attorney hold on to the shipping cost so we ship the canopy at the same time and was rejected.I here forwarded my response to Mr [redacted] , he is the contractor mentioned by Mr [redacted] Regards, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am filing a new complaint against [redacted]boats and its owner, Mr. [redacted]. After almost a whole year of building, the water taxi our company ordered is finally ready to leave Mr. [redacted]'s facility. We payed what he asked for but felt that we were bullied into doing it. Mr. [redacted]...
[redacted] has done great injustice to us and violated commonly agreed upon ethical standards of business practice. We agreed on the last payment after discussions through emails. 1. we pay $5,000 before the shipment of the boat; 2. we are responsible to purchase safety equipment and perform the final stability test. However, Mr. [redacted] demanded payment of $7,400 instead of $5,000 we have agreed upon, claiming that "he could not afford the discount". In fact, Mr. [redacted] did not give us any discount. He has agreed to reimburse us for the price of safety equipment and partial cost of stability test. We did not think it fair and ethical for him to demand extra payment and told him so. He threatened to not deliver our boat unless we pay the $7,400 he asked. For the sake of our boat, which has lanquished in his facility for whole two years at the great cost of our business, we paid what he asked so we can have our boat. However, we felt Mr. [redacted] violated basic trust in business practice: blackmailing his client by withholding his client's property.The Desired Outcome is that we request the refund Mr. [redacted] coerced out of us.[redacted]
1. When the complainant's boat was shipped the subcontractor provided the wrong size canopy. The same contractor worked for the complainant at the destination after it arrived. 2. The complainant received exactly the boat they ordered at the cost they agreed to. 3. The same contractor who...
was performing the work failed to follow the U.S.C.G. regulations in construction and instead unilaterally performed substandard construction on the boat. 4. Because of the failure of the contractor to follow construction regulations the boat had to be made from start again. Additional repeated failures in following U.S.C.G. regulations caused repeated construction to be removed and repaired and corrected to meet regulations on construction standards. These repeated failures by the contractor caused one and one half year delay in completing the boat for the complainant. 5. As a result of these failures causing one year delay in completion the buyer began making repeated derogatory remarks to the seller such as "a cheat, a liar, not trustworthy and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller. which included an emphasis on the complainant's to belief they were short changed or cheated our of the money they paid.6. When the seller realized the contractor had made another error the seller made the offer to swap the canvas for the correct one and would pay $100 and/or contribute to the shipping charges. 7. The ONLY response from the complainant was that the seller should first send the correct canopy then and only then would the other canopy be sent back and that the seller should pay all expenses. 8. Since the canopy the complainant wanted was already part of another customer's boat the seller had no authority to remove it to send to the complainant without replacing it one the spot. 9. Following the complainant's demands would mean the seller would me at the mercy of the complainant to return the canopy they had AFTER when they received another canopy. 10. Due to the recorded statements by the complainant that they believe they were cheated and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller, the seller was justified to conclude the complainant would not send back the canopy they had, or would cause some financial loss to the seller and retribution that is in line with the remarks and threats of litigation that have made repeatedly.11. The seller could not accept these terms without stealing a canopy from another client, and again offered to pay $100 or contribute to shipping to swap canopies. The complaintant refused to send the canopy they had both canopies at the same time where they would then decide whether to return or not. Since the seller does not own the csanopy it was impossible to follow the demands of the complainant and the complainants prior statements made it likely they would not reurn the one they had if they had bothat the same time.12. The seller told the complaintant they had a deadline to send back their canopy for a swap and now that dealine has passed since the other canopy is gone.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I do not believe this is the facts. I have offered to setup a escrew account or to have a attorney hold on to the shipping cost so we ship the canopy at the same time and was rejected.I here forwarded my response to Mr. [redacted], he is the contractor mentioned by Mr. [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]
December 22, 2016Dear Mr. [redacted]Thank you for writing about your concern with the water taxi which you ordered from us. We are sorry to hear that the boat has not met your expectations. It is our hope that we can address your needs and provide the best possible solution to your issue.Someone from...
our company will be contact with you in the coming days to discuss your concern in more detail. Again, thank you for your feedback. It is our goal to regain you as a satisfied customer. [redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.] Regards, [redacted]
When the complainant's boat was shipped the subcontractor provided the wrong size canopyThe same contractor worked for the complainant at the destination after it arrivedThe complainant received exactly the boat they ordered at the cost they agreed toThe same contractor who was performing the work failed to follow the U.S.C.Gregulations in construction and instead unilaterally performed substandard construction on the boatBecause of the failure of the contractor to follow construction regulations the boat had to be made from start againAdditional repeated failures in following U.S.C.Gregulations caused repeated construction to be removed and repaired and corrected to meet regulations on construction standardsThese repeated failures by the contractor caused one and one half year delay in completing the boat for the complainantAs a result of these failures causing one year delay in completion the buyer began making repeated derogatory remarks to the seller such as "a cheat, a liar, not trustworthy and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the sellerwhich included an emphasis on the complainant's to belief they were short changed or cheated our of the money they paidWhen the seller realized the contractor had made another error the seller made the offer to swap the canvas for the correct one and would pay $and/or contribute to the shipping chargesThe ONLY response from the complainant was that the seller should first send the correct canopy then and only then would the other canopy be sent back and that the seller should pay all expensesSince the canopy the complainant wanted was already part of another customer's boat the seller had no authority to remove it to send to the complainant without replacing it one the spotFollowing the complainant's demands would mean the seller would me at the mercy of the complainant to return the canopy they had AFTER when they received another canopyDue to the recorded statements by the complainant that they believe they were cheated and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller, the seller was justified to conclude the complainant would not send back the canopy they had, or would cause some financial loss to the seller and retribution that is in line with the remarks and threats of litigation that have made repeatedlyThe seller could not accept these terms without stealing a canopy from another client, and again offered to pay $or contribute to shipping to swap canopiesThe complaintant refused to send the canopy they had both canopies at the same time where they would then decide whether to return or notSince the seller does not own the csanopy it was impossible to follow the demands of the complainant and the complainants prior statements made it likely they would not reurn the one they had if they had bothat the same timeThe seller told the complaintant they had a deadline to send back their canopy for a swap and now that dealine has passed since the other canopy is gone
December 22, 2016Dear Mr [redacted] Thank you for writing about your concern with the water taxi which you ordered from usWe are sorry to hear that the boat has not met your expectationsIt is our hope that we can address your needs and provide the best possible solution to your issue.Someone from our company will be contact with you in the coming days to discuss your concern in more detailAgain, thank you for your feedbackIt is our goal to regain you as a satisfied customer [redacted]
I am filing a new complaint against [redacted] boats and its owner, Mr [redacted] After almost a whole year of building, the water taxi our company ordered is finally ready to leave Mr [redacted] 's facilityWe payed what he asked for but felt that we were bullied into doing itMr*** [redacted] has done great injustice to us and violated commonly agreed upon ethical standards of business practiceWe agreed on the last payment after discussions through emailswe pay $5,before the shipment of the boat; we are responsible to purchase safety equipment and perform the final stability testHowever, Mr [redacted] demanded payment of $7,instead of $5,we have agreed upon, claiming that "he could not afford the discount"In fact, Mr [redacted] did not give us any discountHe has agreed to reimburse us for the price of safety equipment and partial cost of stability testWe did not think it fair and ethical for him to demand extra payment and told him soHe threatened to not deliver our boat unless we pay the $7,he askedFor the sake of our boat, which has lanquished in his facility for whole two years at the great cost of our business, we paid what he asked so we can have our boatHowever, we felt Mr [redacted] violated basic trust in business practice: blackmailing his client by withholding his client's property.The Desired Outcome is that we request the refund Mr [redacted] coerced out of us[redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I do not believe this is the factsI have offered to setup a escrew account or to have a attorney hold on to the shipping cost so we ship the canopy at the same time and was rejected.I here forwarded my response to Mr [redacted] , he is the contractor mentioned by Mr [redacted] Regards, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am filing a new complaint against [redacted]boats and its owner, Mr. [redacted]. After almost a whole year of building, the water taxi our company ordered is finally ready to leave Mr. [redacted]'s facility. We payed what he asked for but felt that we were bullied into doing it. Mr. [redacted]...
[redacted] has done great injustice to us and violated commonly agreed upon ethical standards of business practice. We agreed on the last payment after discussions through emails. 1. we pay $5,000 before the shipment of the boat; 2. we are responsible to purchase safety equipment and perform the final stability test. However, Mr. [redacted] demanded payment of $7,400 instead of $5,000 we have agreed upon, claiming that "he could not afford the discount". In fact, Mr. [redacted] did not give us any discount. He has agreed to reimburse us for the price of safety equipment and partial cost of stability test. We did not think it fair and ethical for him to demand extra payment and told him so. He threatened to not deliver our boat unless we pay the $7,400 he asked. For the sake of our boat, which has lanquished in his facility for whole two years at the great cost of our business, we paid what he asked so we can have our boat. However, we felt Mr. [redacted] violated basic trust in business practice: blackmailing his client by withholding his client's property.The Desired Outcome is that we request the refund Mr. [redacted] coerced out of us.[redacted]
1. When the complainant's boat was shipped the subcontractor provided the wrong size canopy. The same contractor worked for the complainant at the destination after it arrived. 2. The complainant received exactly the boat they ordered at the cost they agreed to. 3. The same contractor who...
was performing the work failed to follow the U.S.C.G. regulations in construction and instead unilaterally performed substandard construction on the boat. 4. Because of the failure of the contractor to follow construction regulations the boat had to be made from start again. Additional repeated failures in following U.S.C.G. regulations caused repeated construction to be removed and repaired and corrected to meet regulations on construction standards. These repeated failures by the contractor caused one and one half year delay in completing the boat for the complainant. 5. As a result of these failures causing one year delay in completion the buyer began making repeated derogatory remarks to the seller such as "a cheat, a liar, not trustworthy and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller. which included an emphasis on the complainant's to belief they were short changed or cheated our of the money they paid.6. When the seller realized the contractor had made another error the seller made the offer to swap the canvas for the correct one and would pay $100 and/or contribute to the shipping charges. 7. The ONLY response from the complainant was that the seller should first send the correct canopy then and only then would the other canopy be sent back and that the seller should pay all expenses. 8. Since the canopy the complainant wanted was already part of another customer's boat the seller had no authority to remove it to send to the complainant without replacing it one the spot. 9. Following the complainant's demands would mean the seller would me at the mercy of the complainant to return the canopy they had AFTER when they received another canopy. 10. Due to the recorded statements by the complainant that they believe they were cheated and other derogatory and defaming remarks to the seller, the seller was justified to conclude the complainant would not send back the canopy they had, or would cause some financial loss to the seller and retribution that is in line with the remarks and threats of litigation that have made repeatedly.11. The seller could not accept these terms without stealing a canopy from another client, and again offered to pay $100 or contribute to shipping to swap canopies. The complaintant refused to send the canopy they had both canopies at the same time where they would then decide whether to return or not. Since the seller does not own the csanopy it was impossible to follow the demands of the complainant and the complainants prior statements made it likely they would not reurn the one they had if they had bothat the same time.12. The seller told the complaintant they had a deadline to send back their canopy for a swap and now that dealine has passed since the other canopy is gone.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I do not believe this is the facts. I have offered to setup a escrew account or to have a attorney hold on to the shipping cost so we ship the canopy at the same time and was rejected.I here forwarded my response to Mr. [redacted], he is the contractor mentioned by Mr. [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]
December 22, 2016Dear Mr. [redacted]Thank you for writing about your concern with the water taxi which you ordered from us. We are sorry to hear that the boat has not met your expectations. It is our hope that we can address your needs and provide the best possible solution to your issue.Someone from...
our company will be contact with you in the coming days to discuss your concern in more detail. Again, thank you for your feedback. It is our goal to regain you as a satisfied customer. [redacted]