Coastal Pay

I sincerely apologize on behalf of Coastal Pay.

We offered to cancel his lease with no penalty and he responded with threats.
"">Best Regards,
[redacted]

Left a message with the merchant in attempt to resolve.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complain ID [redacted].
There still remains lack of understanding by their legal team as they said:
"Coastal flatly rejects, and Mr. [redacted] has not provided any such evidence to prove herewith, intentionally repeating to call Mr. [redacted]’s business to harass him. Coastal prides itself in respecting the wishes of its customers and potential customers."
At no point did the original complaint indicate that they attempted to repeatedly call.  The difficulty was in getting them to confirm being placed on a DNC list.  Based on the companies response this should have been quite simple if their employees were following these guidelines.
I mark this complaint as resolved on the condition that we are indeed placed on a DNC list, and there is no further contact from Coastal or any of their representatives.
Regards,
[redacted]

Very unfriendly company. Told salesman I was new to the business world and he assured me if things didn't work out and I had to close it would cancel the contract. Well read the fine print. Coastal Pay sales people are not truthful at all. They say what they need to then once you sign, they could care less. They want money and that's the end of it.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find...

that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the...

offer I reviewed appear below.
[While they did reimburse the amount, they never replied to me nor did we reach any agreement. They caused me to accrue 72.00 in fees as well as the original 32.50 they took from my account at the beginning of the month.]
Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:   Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay Merchant Services (“Coastal”).  This letter is in...

response to the September 12, 2016 Revdex.com consumer complaint #[redacted] (“Complaint”) made by Mr. [redacted] (“Mr. [redacted]”) on behalf of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) regarding electronic payment processing agreements between Mr. [redacted] and Coastal. This letter will address Mr. [redacted]’s allegations with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.   On or about August 22, 2016, Mr. [redacted] met with a Coastal sales representative to discuss electronic payment services that Coastal could offer. Subsequently, Mr. [redacted], on behalf of himself and [redacted], signed a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic payments with First Data Merchant Services Corporation (“FDMS”), an equipment finance lease (“Lease”) for electronic payment processing equipment with Ascentium Capital LLC (“Ascentium”), and a Merchant Receipt Purchase Order (“MRPO”) with Coastal (collectively, “Agreements”). Upon credit approval and acceptance by FDMS and Ascentium, the equipment was shipped and later accepted by Mr. [redacted].    The Agreements spell out the material terms of the Service provided by Coastal and the obligations of each party. In several of the locations where the merchant signs the Agreements is a certification or acknowledgement that the merchant understands the terms of the Agreements or other related documents. As soon as the account is set up for the merchant, Coastal helps the merchant install his or her new equipment via phone call and responds to any questions or concerns the new merchant may have. After making this phone call, Mr. [redacted] expressed his desire to close his account and cancel the Agreements with Coastal. Thereafter on August 31, 2016, Mr. [redacted] spoke with a Coastal manager and they subsequently agreed that Mr. [redacted] would process electronic payments with Coastal until January 2017. On September 12, 2016, Mr. [redacted] contacted Coastal wanting to cancel his Agreements.   Mr. [redacted] alleges that the Coastal representative misled him into “signing a false agreement for services that [he] did not agree to have them perform.” Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] claims he was “lead to believe [he] was signing up for a social networking but I was signing an agreement for sales service.” However, Mr. [redacted] has failed to present any facts or evidence to support these allegations. The Agreements or any other binding documents between the parties do not coincide with Mr. [redacted]’s allegations either.   Now Mr. [redacted] desires for Coastal to terminate otherwise valid Agreements by merely paying “cancellation” fees that do not cover the cost of the Agreements. Although Mr. [redacted] is free to cancel the Coastal Agreements when he would like, he will be subject to the cancellation fees as outlined in the Agreements. As such, Coastal will show the following: 1) the validity and enforceability of the Agreements; 2) that there was no misrepresentation of the Agreements; 3) that Coastal is authorized to charge an early termination fee pursuant to the Agreements; and 4) an offer of resolution.   The Agreements entered into by Mr. [redacted] and Coastal are valid and enforceable. Offer, acceptance, and consideration are found in the Agreements, as Coastal offered its’ services in exchange for a monthly service fee from Mr. [redacted]. Further, Mr. [redacted] is a sophisticated party as a business owner. As such, he is held to a higher standard of business knowledge and legal principles. Moreover, every party, whether sophisticated or not, has the duty to read the Agreements. A written contract is the highest evidence of the terms of an agreement between the parties to it. As a result of this duty, a person who signs a written contract is bound by its terms regardless of his or her failure to read and understand its terms. Mr. [redacted] was under a duty to read the terms of the Agreements and if he did not, that knowledge is imputed on him regardless. Here, Mr. [redacted] has alleged nothing that would have excused him from reading the Agreements. Furthermore, the Agreements clearly show Mr. [redacted]’s endorsement of the Agreements by signature. Directly above or below every signature line is an acknowledgement or certification of what the merchant is signing, hence negating Mr. [redacted]’s allegation of being misled on what the services were. Therefore, whether Mr. [redacted] knew of the terms of the Agreements or not, the Agreements are valid and enforceable as to both parties involved.   Alternatively, Mr. [redacted] alleges Coastal materially misrepresented terms of the Agreements; however, he has failed to provide any specific facts or evidence that material misrepresentation occurred. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements, clearly labeled as a lease, and accepted the new equipment without contention, makes an actionable material misrepresentation claim unlikely. Material misrepresentation requires more than just a broken promise or a breach of contract. Generally, a party alleging material misrepresentation must prove: 1. a representation; 2. its falsity; 3. its materiality; 4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its [redacted]th; 5. the speaker's intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably contemplated; 6. the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; 7. the hearer's reliance upon its [redacted]th; 8. the right of the hearer to rely upon it; and 9. the hearer's consequent and proximate injury or damage. Also, as you are making these claims with respect to a business, you must also particularize what was said or written by Coastal’s sales agent, and how these statements or writings contradict the written contracts you entered into.   Here, Coastal representatives did not defraud or misrepresent their intentions when meeting or speaking with Mr. [redacted]. Coastal proudly grounds itself and trains their employees in standard, proper business practices so as to avoid any material misrepresentation to merchants. Part of its training is to help Coastal representatives to avoid the pitfalls of intentional or innocent misrepresentation to merchants in offering its services. In addition, Coastal in no way fraudulently altered or changed the Agreements, nor did Coastal fraudulently persuade Mr. [redacted] into signing them. There is no evidence indicating that Coastal intentionally and knowingly mislead Mr. [redacted], in any way. Mr. [redacted] has failed to provide any proof that the sales representative took affirmative steps to prevent him from reading the contracts or that Mr. [redacted] felt pressured or threatened into signing the contracts. All material terms of the Agreements are clearly marked and should have been noted by Mr. [redacted] Therefore, a claim for material misrepresentation against Coastal is unfounded.   It is also important to note that the Lease and the MRPO are separate agreements, which have no influence on the enforceability of one another.  As such, any decision to cancel the MRPO would not terminate the Lease and vice versa. The leasing company still holds the rights under the Lease and Coastal still holds the rights under the MRPO. The separation of each agreement is clearly disclosed in both agreements. Any further communications pertaining to the Lease should be made to leasing company directly.   In addition to the $495 early termination fee Mr. [redacted] agreed to, the full balance of the electronic payment processing equipment would be due. Mr. [redacted] agreed that the equipment lease would be non-cancellable, and therefore cannot reasonably be surprised by his continuing obligation to make payments under the lease. With respect to a commercial finance lease, a lessee’s (here, Mr. [redacted]) contractual promise becomes “irrevocable and independent upon the lessee’s acceptance of the goods.”  (UCC Art. 2A § 2A-407.)  Here, the Lease for the equipment is a finance lease under the UCC because it was formed between two entities in the course of business.  (See UCC § 2A-103 subd. (g).) Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] accepted the equipment when it arrived at [redacted]. Upon this acceptance the lease became non-cancellable. Additionally, Coastal performed their side of the Agreements by opening a new merchant processing account and sending the equipment to [redacted]. Once Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements, he became subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements, including any applicable early termination fees. The terms clearly state that he will have to pay the full term of the lease, plus any additional cancellation fees, if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely. Mr. [redacted] is thus subject to the full term of the lease under the terms and conditions of the Agreements.   Ultimately, Coastal strives to provide great customer service to their merchants and would like to see a mutually beneficial resolution to this situation. Coastal has attempted to work with Mr. [redacted] in allowing him to process with Coastal until January 2017 so Mr. [redacted] can experience lower rates in addition to the advanced technology, service, and support provided by Coastal. In the interest of achieving such a result, Coastal is willing to maintain this offer for Mr. [redacted]. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email me at [redacted]   For the firm,   /S/ [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

Re: Revdex.com Case #[redacted]; [redacted] of [redacted]To Whom It May Concern:Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay, LLC (“Coastal”). This letter is in response to the Revdex.com complaint #[redacted] regarding electronic payment processing agreements between [redacted] (“[redacted]”) of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that letter with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.On or about May 18, 2015, a Coastal phone representative called [redacted] and asked if an authorized representative would like to meet with a Coastal sales representative to discuss the electronic payment services that Coastal could offer. Shortly thereafter, [redacted] met with a Coastal sales representative. [redacted] individually and on behalf of [redacted] signed a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic payments with First Data Merchant Services Corporation (“FDMS”), an Equipment Lease Agreement for electronic payment processing equipment with [redacted]. (“[redacted]”), and a Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal (collectively, “Agreements”). A couple of days later, [redacted] emailed Coastal requesting early termination of the Agreements and a refund of $1,492.00. Since then, $1,492.00 has been refunded to [redacted].The Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable. Offer, acceptance, and consideration are found in the Agreements, as Coastal offered their services in exchange for a monthly service fee from [redacted]. [redacted] is a sophisticated business owner who entered into a commercial contract on behalf of himself and his business, [redacted]. It is well-established law that [redacted]’s duty to read contracts in their entirety before signing them is imputed on him. Once [redacted] signed the Agreements, [redacted] became subject to the terms and conditions of these Agreements, including any applicable early termination fees. Additionally, Coastal performed their duties by opening a new merchant processing account. The terms clearly state that he will have to pay any cancellation fees, if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely. [redacted] is thus subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements.It is also important to note that the Lease and the MAA are separate agreements, which have no influence on the enforceability of one another. As such, any decision to cancel the MAA would not terminate the Lease and vice versa. [redacted] still holds the rights under the Lease and Coastal still holds the rights under the MAA. The separation of each agreement is clearly disclosed in both agreements. Any further communications pertaining to the Lease should be made to [redacted] directly.Ultimately, Coastal is committed to customer satisfaction and a mutually beneficial business relationship. Coastal is willing to work with [redacted] and correct any errors within their power. If [redacted] desires to resume his Coastal account, he may do so while still using the financial equipment and enjoying Coastal’s superior technology and service. In any event, we hope that [redacted] will reconsider his cancellation, and work with Coastal to find a positive resolution. Should [redacted] have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted].[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:
Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay Merchant
Services (“Coastal”).  This letter is in
response to a December 10, 2015 letter, #[redacted], regarding electronic payment
processing agreements between, Mr. [redacted] of Snazzy Pet Bed...

and
Biscuit (“Snazzy”) and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in
that letter with the hopes of finding an amicable resolution.
On or about October 21, 2015, a Coastal phone
representative called Snazzy and asked if an authorized representative would
like to meet with a Coastal sales representative to discuss the electronic
payment services that Coastal could offer. 
Shortly thereafter, Mr. [redacted] met with a Coastal representative to
discuss electronic payment services. Mr. [redacted] individually and on behalf
of Snazzy signed a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic
payments with First Data Merchant Services Corporation (“FDMS”), an equipment
finance lease for electronic payment processing equipment (“Lease”) with First
Data Global Leasing (“FDGL”), and a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal
(collectively, “Agreements”).  Upon
credit approval and acceptance by FDMS and FDGL, the equipment was shipped and
later accepted by Snazzy. At the time of the signing of the Agreements, Mr.
[redacted] alleges that he was promised that there would be no contract or fees
for the electronic payment processing equipment. Further, he alleges that the
Coastal representative “bold face lied and guaranteed” certain services or
features of the service to Mr. [redacted]. However, Coastal will show the
following: 1) the Agreements Mr. [redacted] signed are valid and enforceable; 2)
any extrinsic oral statements are inadmissible as a matter of law; 3) Coastal
was and is authorized to debit Mr. [redacted]’s account and applicable cancellation
fees apply; and lastly 4) Coastal will extend an offer of a resolution.
The Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable.
There was an offer by Coastal, an acceptance of that offer by Snazzy through
the signed Agreements, and consideration as required by contract law, as
Coastal offered its services in exchange for a monthly service fee from Mr. [redacted].
Further, Mr. [redacted], President of Snazzy, is a sophisticated party as a
business owner. As such, he is held to a higher standard of business knowledge
and legal principles. Under relevant law, courts will almost always uphold the
agreements between two sophisticated parties. Mr. [redacted] will be held
accountable to the agreement he made with Coastal, which were the fees for the
merchant account services as well as the Lease. Thus, due to the status of the
parties, court will uphold the validity of the Agreements.
Moreover, any party, whether sophisticated or not, has
the duty to read the Agreements. A party’s failure to read a contract is not an
excuse and does not nullify a contract. As a sophisticated party or not Mr. [redacted]
was under a duty to read the terms of the Agreements and if he did not, that
knowledge is imputed on him regardless. Here, Mr. [redacted] has alleged
nothing that would have excused him from reading the Agreements. On the
contrary, Mr. [redacted]’s signature and initials appear seven (7) times on the
disputed Agreement. Nevertheless, whether Mr. [redacted] knew of the terms of
the Agreements or not, the Agreements are valid and enforceable as to both
parties involved.
Additionally, Mr. [redacted] alleges that he was told there
wouldn’t be a contract or fees associated with his agreement with Coastal. Yet,
this allegation undermines Mr. [redacted]’s own actions of signing the
Agreements, including the clearly labeled Lease of financial equipment.
Moreover, if this allegation refers to the sales agent making oral promises,
which contradicted the terms of the Agreements, it will not hold in court. The
“parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic oral agreements made before or at the time
of the signing of the Agreements to add to the terms of an unambiguous
integrated written instrument. Each and
every material term to which Mr. [redacted] is subject is written in the
Agreements, which was signed by Mr. [redacted]. The exception to this rule
would be an allegation of misrepresentation or fraud (discussed below), yet
that allegation is unfounded based on Mr. [redacted]’s allegations. As
explained above, Mr. [redacted] is subject to these terms regardless of whether
he actually read the Agreements and any extrinsic statements that contradict
the terms of the Agreements are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.
Therefore, the Agreements are valid and enforceable.
As Mr. [redacted] puts it, the Coastal representative
“bold face lied and guaranteed” Mr. [redacted] certain things. In other words, he
alleges material misrepresentation occurred as the Coastal representative
presented him the service. Material misrepresentation requires more than just a
broken promise or a breach of contract. Under most jurisdictions, a party
alleging misrepresentation must prove: (1) A representation; (2) which is material
to the transaction; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or
recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of
misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation; and, (6) the resulting injury was caused by the reliance.
Also, these claims, with respect to a business, must particularize what was
said or written by Coastal’s representative, and how these statements or writings
contradict the Agreements Mr. [redacted] entered into.
Here, there is no specific evidence that material
misrepresentation occurred. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity
and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Mr. [redacted] signed the
Agreements with knowledge of the material terms, accepted the financial
equipment and account opened in his name, and used Coastal’s services for
almost two months, makes an actionable material misrepresentation claim
unlikely. Coastal representatives did not defraud or misrepresent their
intentions when relaying the services to Mr. [redacted]. Coastal proudly
grounds itself and trains its employees in standard, proper business practices
so as to avoid any material misrepresentation to customers. Part of its
training is to help Coastal representatives to avoid the pitfalls of
intentional or innocent misrepresentation to customers in offering its’
services. In addition, Coastal in no way fraudulently altered or changed the
Agreements, nor did Coastal fraudulently persuade Mr. [redacted] into signing
them. On the contrary, Mr. [redacted] admits it was busy the day he signed the
Agreements and that he should have asked the Coastal representative to come at
a later time. Unfortunately, however, he did not and he bound himself to the
Agreements. There is no evidence that the Coastal representative took
affirmative steps to prevent him from reading the Agreements or that Mr. [redacted]
felt threatened into signing the Agreements. All material terms of the
Agreements are clearly marked and could have been noted by Mr. [redacted].
Therefore, a claim for material misrepresentation against Coastal is unlikely.
Mr. [redacted] alleges that Coastal has been
withdrawing from Snazzy’s bank account. However, Coastal is authorized by and
through the Agreements to charge Snazzy for the services rendered to it. Again,
the terms of the Agreements speak to this allegation. The Confirmation Page of
the Agreements under Paragraph two clearly state, “We may debit you account
from time to time for amounts owed to us under the Agreement.” Because Mr.
[redacted] opened his account on October 21, 2015, Coastal was entitled to
withdraw payment from Ms. Parker as soon as that date. Coastal was entitled to
the payment because Mr. [redacted] consented to this provision from the moment
he agreed to the terms. Thus, Coastal was authorized to charge Mr. [redacted]
for Coastal’s services.
Additionally, Coastal performed its side of the
Agreements by opening a new merchant processing account and sending the
equipment to Snazzy. Once Mr. [redacted]
signed the Agreements, he became subject to the terms and conditions of the
Agreements, including any applicable early termination fees. The terms clearly
state that he will have to pay the full term of the Lease, plus any additional
cancellation fees, if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely. As
established above, Mr. [redacted] is thus subject to the full term of the Lease
under the terms and conditions of the Agreements.
It is also important to note that the Lease and the MAA
are separate agreements, which have no influence on the enforceability of one
another.  As such, any decision to cancel
the MAA would not terminate the Lease and vice versa. FDGL still holds the
rights under the Lease and Coastal still holds the rights under the MAA. The
separation of each agreement is clearly disclosed in both agreements. Any further
communications pertaining to the Lease should be made to FDGL directly.
Mr. [redacted] now seeks to terminate the Agreements
with Coastal. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, the right and opportunity
to cancel is available to Mr. [redacted]. Merchants may cancel at any time. An
important detail to the cancellation provision however is that it follows the
process laid out in the Agreements. Moreover, although he is free to cancel the
Agreements at any time, he is and will be subject to the terms of the
Agreements. Due to signing the Agreements on behalf of himself and Snazzy, Mr. [redacted]
has agreed to the terms set forth by Coastal. The terms clearly state that he
will have to pay the full term of the lease, plus any additional cancellation
fees, if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely.
Ultimately, Coastal’s priority is customer service. As
such, Coastal would like to offer Snazzy a more competitive offer than what it
initially agreed to in an effort to encourage Mr. [redacted] to stay with Coastal. 
Snazzy would still enjoy the advanced technology and service, but would
also get even more competitive rates. On the other hand, Coastal is willing to
work out any documented errors that Mr. [redacted] could provide to Coastal.
Coastal prides itself upon widespread customer satisfaction and will gladly
facilitate a mutually beneficial resolution regardless of Snazzy’s decision. Should
Mr. [redacted] have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to
email j[redacted]@attorneygl.com. 
For the firm,
/s/
[redacted] C.
[redacted], Esq.
Global Legal Law
Firm
JCH/ksc

Don't sign up for this , they will rip you off and make your life like hell ????????????????????

We have been in contact with the merchant to get this issue resolved.

Re: Complaint ID [redacted]; [redacted] o[redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted],Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay (“Coastal”). This letter is in response to a May 9, 2017 consumer complaint Business ID [redacted], regarding electronic...

payment processing agreements between [redacted] (“Ms. [redacted]”) owner of [redacted] doing business as [redacted] and [redacted] and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that complaint.On or about February 21, 2017, Ms. [redacted] met with a Coastal sales representative regarding retaining Coastal’s credit card services. Subsequently, Ms. [redacted], on behalf of herself and [redacted], signed a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic payments with [redacted] Services Corporation (“FDMS”), an equipment finance lease (“Lease”) for electronic payment processing equipment with [redacted] Systems, Inc. (“[redacted]”), and a Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal (collectively “Agreements”). Upon credit approval and acceptance of the Agreements by FDMS and [redacted], the equipment was shipped and later accepted by [redacted]. Subsequently, [redacted] stopped payment on the Lease.To preserve Coastal’s business reputation, however, it will show: (1) the validity and enforceability of the Agreements; (2) that no misrepresentations occurred; and (3) the non- cancellable nature of the Lease.Ms. [redacted] signed the agreements, and took further steps for retaining Coastal’s services by providing a voided check, a copy of her driver’s license, business license and also a signed Notice of Cancellation of her Bankcard Processing Account with [redacted] in which when it is submitted cancels her merchant account with [redacted] immediately. These said documents are all required to be submitted at the time of retaining services with Coastal and Coastal would not have had such documents if Ms. [redacted] was not retaining Coastal’s services and was not ready to “dive into this business agreement”. As such, Ms. [redacted] is held to a higher standard of business knowledge and legal principles. Courts generally consider this factor when determining whether to enforce a contract formed between parties. Ms. [redacted] will be held accountable to the Agreements she made with Coastal, which was the payment of the monthly fee in exchange for Coastal providing its services.Moreover, every party, whether sophisticated or not, has a duty to read the Agreements. Ms. [redacted] failure to read the terms of the Agreements will not excuse her performance of the Agreements. Whether Ms. [redacted] read the terms of the Agreements or not, that knowledge is imputed on her regardless. The Agreements clearly show Ms. [redacted] signature and initials and regardless of whether Ms. [redacted] actually read them, the Agreements are valid and enforceable as to both parties involved.In order to avoid confusion and misrepresentation, the Agreements contain a merger clause binding the parties to the terms of the Agreements and not on any oral promises made outside of the Agreements. The parol evidence rule bars any such extrinsic evidence. Here, each and every material term to which [redacted] is subject to is written in the fully integrated Agreements, which were signed and initialed by Ms. [redacted]. As explained above, Ms. [redacted] is subject to these terms regardless of whether she actually read the Agreements and any extrinsic statements that contradict the terms of the Agreements are inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. Therefore, the terms contained in the Agreements are valid and enforceable, and govern the relationship between Coastal and [redacted].No Misrepresentation Occurred The Agreements contained all material terms, which Ms. [redacted] agreed to, including the Lease of electronic payment processing equipment. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreements, including the clearly labeled Lease, accepted the new equipment without contention, makes an actionable material misrepresentation claim unlikely.Moreover, Coastal representatives did not defraud or misrepresent their intentions when meeting or speaking with Ms. [redacted]. Coastal has implemented a successful, ethical training program in standard, proper business practices so as to avoid any material misrepresentation to potential merchants. A core part of its training is to help Coastal representatives to avoid the pitfalls of intentional or innocent misrepresentation to merchants in offering its services. There is no evidence indicating that Coastal intentionally and knowingly mislead Ms. [redacted] in any way. Ms. [redacted] has failed to provide any proof that the sales representative took affirmative steps to pressure or threaten into signing the Agreements. All material terms of the Agreements are clearly marked and should have been noted by Ms. [redacted], thus negating the allegation of a “trapped” or “tricked” lease agreement. Therefore, a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against Coastal is unsupported.Non-Cancellation of the Lease Moreover, [redacted] also agreed that the equipment lease would be non-cancellable, and therefore cannot reasonably be surprised by its continuing obligation to make payments under the Lease. Indeed, the Lease is clearly marked with bold, capitalized letters “NON- CANCELABLE EQUIPMENT FINANCE LEASE AGREEMENT.” With respect to a commercial finance lease, a lessee’s (here, Ms. [redacted]) contractual promise becomes “irrevocable and independent upon the lessee’s acceptance of the goods.” (UCC Art. 2A § 2A- 407.) Here, the Lease for the equipment is a finance lease under the UCC because it was formed between two entities in the course of business. (See UCC § 2A-103 subd. (g).) Furthermore, [redacted] accepted the equipment when it arrived at its place of business. Upon this acceptance, the Lease became non-cancellable. Once [redacted] signed the Agreements, it became subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements, including any applicable early termination fees. The terms clearly state that Ms. [redacted] will have to pay the full term of the Lease, plus any additional cancellation fees, if she cancels the Agreements prematurely. As established above, Ms. [redacted] is therefore subject to the balance of the lease and all other terms and conditions of the Agreements.Request for Resolution It should be noted that Ms. [redacted] requests for what she considers to be a “desired settlement” is out of the dominion and control of Coastal. Coastal has no authority to cancel the Lease. Ms. [redacted] is responsible for payment of the remainder of the terms of the Lease. Should Ms. [redacted] have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me via email at [redacted]@attorneygl.com .For the firm,[redacted]Contract Validity The contract entered into by [redacted] and Coastal is valid and enforceable. Offer, acceptance, and consideration are found in the Agreements, as Coastal offered its services in exchange for a monthly service fee from [redacted]. Further, Ms. [redacted] claim that she was asked to sign the agreements so that the sales agent could hold onto them until Ms. [redacted] was ready to make a decision on acceptance of Coastal Pay’s service is false. As you can see in the attached contracts,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]      If anyone noticed, the diatribe of reiterating that I am solely at fault for initialing or signing my name to documentation is ludicrous. The lioness in the grass that tolled my place of business with a primary goal in mind and that was to sell me a product through deception and promises that were never intended to be kept or made to come true. The logistical diction was quite convincing and believed to be forth right. As I said in the initial complaint, my first two INSISTED requests to the rep were NO CONTRACTS AND NO CHARGE FOR THE CHIP TERMINAL. I believe that the response was, 'We can help you with that'. She meant help themselves. And she told me that, from her seeing the previous provider's statement, that I was being charged for services that no longer should have been charged. So I said, 'they were stealing from me then'? I didn't wait for an answer for I was relating my life mantra that lying and stealing are two things I will not tolerate. 
    When I signed or initialed anything, she never once conveyed or explained to me what each section was. It was like a speed test and she had to have been chomping at the bit to get to the next section. Very complimentary about my pistol of a wife and just down right attempting to play me or either being evasive and contemplating her next hoodwink move. I guess I haven't listened to my own advice about trusting people. It's a vile and wicked world out there. When the rep left in her little red sports car, I checked the reviews on this company and a 3 to 3.5 were the majority of their ratings. After that initial $45 on, I believe their second statement, her response via phone call was that is was a charge that corresponded to those bogus charges of the former provider. So I said, 'alright', knowing that I wasn't really saving any monies because of that charge and was ultimately more than likely dishing out more of our hard earned money. I found some comfort in knowing that I didn't have to buy a terminal at $199 from the other guys. By the way. I never had any issues with the other provider, so you know that this was well sugar coated.
    I receive a phone call questioning why my account was closed to them. My credit union with strict orders from me has no provider the right to confiscate funds from our accounts. This is when I find out that there was to be a $49 monthly fee for leasing the terminal. The unit cost $159 and I know because I inquired about it from a relative that actually has a similar business on a much smaller scale with very high rates. Again, never once mentioned, even though that was the second thing that popped from my mouth when the conversation was first initiated. So I do a second internet search on this company and by merely changing the verbiage, wow, there was not one rating higher than 1. So I begin reading literally hundreds of chagrin and disgruntled clients that want to initiate a class action suit against them. Disbelief and disappointed best described my reaction and a gut wrenching feeling.
    If you're searching for veracity in this ordeal, you need not look on the other side of the aisle. I speak the truth and no legal jargon will intimidate me. The veil was dropped, and they were exposed. They are all about money and will get it at any means. They've even gone as far as threaten clients by reminding them that they are a multi-billion dollar corporation. Shame on them and their sheeple for committing such egregious practices. I stand by my word, which is more than what they can ever claim. This succinct rebuttal may pale in lieu of the lawyer's account. We are not being graded on verbosity, but on meaningful and truthful content.
Appreciate your indulgence: [redacted]

Our marketing department is very excited about our product. I wouldnt say they are agressive, they are persistant because of how much we can do with smb's.

To whom this may concern: 
This check was sent out August 28, 2015 for the amount of $495.00, written out to: 
[redacted]
We have contacted this merchant...

and left a message in regards to this check. The check number was [redacted] and I do see that the check has yet to be cashed. Normal procedure in regards to cancellation checks is that the merchant be processing for 30 days with Coastal Pay, then the merchant sends over the invoice or proof of cancellation fee from the previous credit card processor so that we can reimburse them for the amount WRITTEN on the contract. In this case, NO CANCELLATION FEE was written on the contract. I do understand that $495.00 is a tremendous amount for any size business and in some cases can be the straw that breaks the camel's back, so we sent out this cancellation fee out of the kindness of our hearts even though there was NO CANCELLATION FEE written on the contract. I advise the merchant to return our phone calls so that we can rectify this situation. Our phone number is 888.266.1715 x[redacted] for help desk and the merchant has our cell phone number in her voicemail box. Hope to resolve this soon. Thank you. 
-Coastal Pay Support Team

To Whom It May Concern:
Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay Merchant
Services (“Coastal”).  This letter is in
response to the November 24, 2015 letter, #[redacted], regarding electronic
payment processing agreements between Ms. [redacted] of Shake Your Day...

(“SYD”)
and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that letter with the
hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.
On or about November 2, 2015, a Coastal phone
representative called SYD and asked if an authorized representative would like
to meet with a Coastal sales representative to discuss the electronic payment
services that Coastal could offer. 
Shortly thereafter, Ms. [redacted], individually and on behalf of SYD, signed
a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic payments with
First Data Merchant Services Corporation (“FDMS”), an equipment finance lease
for electronic payment processing equipment (“Lease”) with First Data Global
Leasing (“FDGL”), and a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal
(collectively, “Agreements”).  Upon
credit approval and acceptance by FDMS and FDGL, the equipment was shipped and
later accepted by SYD.
Ms. [redacted] alleges that she
felt hesitant about joining Coastal’s service; however she decided finally to
sign up with Coastal and signed the Agreements. Although Ms. [redacted] wanted to
retain a copy of the Agreements, it is against company policy to leave the
original copy of the Agreements with the merchant, which is why the Coastal
representative told Ms. [redacted] she would send a copy later to her. Ms. [redacted]
further alleges that she realized the services being provided to her, as stated
in the Agreements, differed than what was represented to her. After the endorsement of the Agreements, Coastal
opened a merchant account for Ms. [redacted] and the financial equipment was sent
as provided in the Lease. Finally, despite
all that has transpired, Ms. [redacted] alleges that, “[she] did not have a
contract with [Coastal].” Below Coastal addresses each and every allegation
presented by Mr. [redacted].
The Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable.
There was an offer by Coastal, an acceptance of that offer by SYD through the
signed Agreements, and consideration as required by contract law, as Coastal
offered its services in exchange for a monthly service fee from Ms. [redacted].
Further, Ms. [redacted] is a sophisticated party as a business owner. As such, she
is held to a higher standard of business knowledge and legal principles. Under
relevant law, courts will almost always uphold the agreements between two
sophisticated parties. Ms. [redacted] will be held accountable to the agreement she
made with Coastal, which were the fees for the merchant account services as
well as the lease of the financial equipment. Thus, due to the status of the
parties, court will uphold the validity of the Agreements.
Moreover, any party, whether sophisticated or not, has
the duty to read the Agreements. A party’s failure to read a contract is not an
excuse and does not nullify a contract. As a sophisticated party or not Ms. [redacted]
was under a duty to read the terms of the Agreements and if she did not, that
knowledge is imputed on her regardless. Here, Ms. [redacted] has alleged nothing
that would have excused her from reading the Agreement. On the contrary, Ms. [redacted]
alleges that she did see the terms of the Agreements and that she asked
questions about some of the terms of the Agreements. Nevertheless, whether Ms.
[redacted] knew of the terms of the Agreements or not, the Agreements are valid and
enforceable as to both parties involved.
Additionally, Ms. [redacted] alleges that she was told things
differently from what was stated in the Agreements. If this allegation refers
to the sales agent making oral promises, which contradicted the terms of the
Agreements, it will not hold in court. The “parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic
oral agreements made before the signing of the Agreements to add to the terms
of an unambiguous integrated written instrument. Each and every material term to which Ms. [redacted] is subject is written
in the Agreements, which was signed by Ms. [redacted]. The exception to this rule
would be an allegation of misrepresentation or fraud (discussed below), yet
that allegation is contradictory to what Ms. [redacted] alleges since she knew of
the supposed discrepancies in the Agreements and Coastal’s extrinsic
statements. As explained above, Ms. [redacted] is subject to these terms regardless
of whether she actually read the Agreements and any extrinsic statements that
contradict the terms of the Agreements are inadmissible under the parol
evidence rule. Therefore, the Agreement is valid and enforceable.
Ms. [redacted] alleges Coastal did not disclose or
otherwise misrepresented the terms of the Agreements. Material
misrepresentation requires more than just a broken promise or a breach of
contract. Under most jurisdictions, a party alleging misrepresentation must
prove: (1) A representation; (2) which is material to the transaction; (3) made
falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true
or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5)
justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and, (6) the resulting injury
was caused by the reliance. Also, these claims, with respect to a business,
must particularize what was said or written by Coastal’s representative, and
how these statements or writings contradict the Agreements Ms. [redacted] entered
into.
Here, there is no specific evidence that material
misrepresentation occurred. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity
and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Ms. [redacted] signed the
Agreements with knowledge of the material terms makes an actionable material
misrepresentation claim unlikely. Coastal representatives did not defraud or
misrepresent their intentions when relaying the services to Ms. [redacted]. Coastal
proudly grounds itself and trains its employees in standard, proper business
practices so as to avoid any material misrepresentation to customers. Part of
its training is to help Global representatives to avoid the pitfalls of
intentional or innocent misrepresentation to customers in offering its’
services. In addition, Coastal in no way fraudulently altered or changed the
Agreements, nor did Coastal fraudulently persuade Ms. [redacted] into signing them.
On the contrary, Coastal was happy to work with Ms. [redacted] to change the term
of the contract period from the typical 4-5 years to 2 years. There is no evidence
that the Coastal representative took affirmative steps to prevent her from
reading the Agreements or that Ms. [redacted] felt threatened into signing the Agreements.
All material terms of the Agreements are clearly marked and could have been
noted by Ms. [redacted]. Therefore, a claim for material misrepresentation against
Coastal is unlikely.
Ms. [redacted] now seeks to terminate the Agreements with
Coastal. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the right and opportunity to
cancel is available to Ms. [redacted]. Merchants may cancel at any time. An
important detail to the cancellation provision however is that it follows the
process laid out in the Agreement. However, although she is free to cancel the
Agreements at any time, she is and will be subject to the terms of the
Agreements while she was a party to it.
Due to signing the Agreements on behalf of herself and
SYD, Ms. [redacted] has agreed to the terms set forth by Coastal. The terms clearly
state that she will have to pay the full term of the lease, plus any additional
cancellation fees, if she were to cancel the Agreements prematurely.
Coastal would like to offer SYD a more competitive
offer than what it initially agreed to in an effort to encourage Ms. [redacted] to stay with Coastal.  SYD would still enjoy the advanced technology
and service, but would also get even more competitive rates. Coastal maintains
its offer to SYD of a 2-year contract period with Coastal. Coastal prides
itself upon widespread customer satisfaction and will gladly facilitate a
mutually beneficial resolution regardless of SYD’s decision. Should Ms. [redacted] have
any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email [redacted].  
For the firm,
/s/
[redacted]
Global Legal Law
Firm
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[ I am fully aware that I signed the paperwork, but there was an agreement between Myself,  [redacted] and [redacted] that none of the paperwork/contracts would be submitted until I had the opportunity to discuss this decision with my husband, who is 50% owner. I was led to believe that if I didn't sign and provide all information needed right then I would lose the opportunity to lock in the price they quoted me at.  What truly happened here is bad business practice on Coastal Pays' part and We as a family owned an operating small business in rural am[redacted]a will be the ones suffering from this.  ]
Regards,
[redacted]

Coastal Pay, LLC: called our business (unwated) to sell us their merchant services (no problem). I told them we were not interested, we are happy who we are with. The "gentleman" on the phone was extremely defensive, mocked what I was telling him. This was Friday October 9, 2015. After 30 mins of telling him to stop with the sales pitch we are NOT interested and not to call back anymore I hung up on him. He ([redacted]) then called us back Thrusday October 15, 2015 and asked for the owner (My husband) I asked his name and place he worked with. When he answered that I told him no you can't speak with the owner and to stop calling, I hung up. He continued to call back THREE times until my husband finally answered and fought with the "[redacted]" for another 30 minutes or so. He would not take no for answer. "[redacted]" made it seem like he worked for the law and that our business was going to get shut down asap with we didn't choose this company. He was absolutely out of line. The worst customer services I have ever seen. My husband had to take it where it should never have gone and threatened to sue this company, which it didn't faze this guy a bit. This [redacted] guy is a terrible rep for this company. Who knows, we might have gone with you guys if he didn't act the was he did. Mocking? threatening? David, you work for a merchant service company, not the government!!! Terrible, Terrible, TERRIBLE!!!!! I will tell every business I know about how you rip people off and have horrible, terrible customer service!!! By the way, my husband has been in this business for over 20 years and I have never seen him get this mad with a "sales person"! WAY TO GO COASTAL PAY!!!!!

To Whom It May Concern:
Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay,
LLC (“Coastal”).  This letter is in
response to the Revdex.com complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), regarding electronic
payment processing agreements between [redacted] (“Ms. [redacted]”) of Bea-u-ty
“n” You and...

Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that letter
with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.
On or about January 29, 2016, a Coastal sales
representative met with Ms. [redacted] to discuss the electronic payment services
that Coastal could offer. Shortly thereafter, Ms. [redacted], individually and on
behalf of [redacted], signed a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to
process electronic payments with First Data Merchant Services Corporation
(“FDMS”), an Equipment Lease Agreement (“Lease”) for electronic payment
processing equipment with [redacted]. (“[redacted]”), and a
Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal (collectively,
“Agreements”). Upon credit approval and acceptance by FDMS and [redacted], the
equipment was shipped and later accepted by [redacted].
Now Ms. [redacted] claims that she should be permitted to
cancel the Agreements without paying any early termination fees because she
feels that the Coastal sales representative misrepresented Coastal’s services.
However, this allegation is without merit
The Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable.
Offer, acceptance, and consideration are found in the Agreements, as Coastal
offered their services in exchange for a monthly service fee from Bea-u-ty “n”
You.  It is well-established law that Ms.
[redacted] has the duty to read contracts in their entirety before signing them.
 Failure
to read a contract in detail before signing it is no defense to its
enforceability. Once Ms. [redacted] signed the Agreements, [redacted] became
subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements, including any applicable
early termination fees.  Additionally, Coastal
performed their duties by opening a new merchant processing account and sending
equipment.  Nothing in the facts would
indicate that Ms. [redacted] was somehow prevented from reading the Agreements
before signing them.  To the contrary,
Ms. [redacted]’ initials appear in the corner of every page in the Agreements.
Section 6 of the MPA, titled “Equipment/Third Party Information,” clearly
states that Ms. [redacted] was entering into a non-cancelable lease for
equipment.  That same section also
indicates that Ms. [redacted] was applying to lease a Clover Mini terminal for forty-eight
(48) months at fifty ($50) dollars per month. Ms. [redacted]’ initials at the
bottom of the page, along with the fact that the majority of figures on that
page were handwritten, contradict Ms. [redacted]’ claims of ignorance.
Ms. [redacted] also believes that she should be released
from the Agreements because the Coastal sales representative “misrepresented
his company and services…” but fails to provide any facts to support this
claim. Coastal did not defraud or misrepresent its intentions when meeting or
speaking with Ms. [redacted]. Coastal proudly grounds itself and trains their
employees in standard, proper business practices so as to avoid any material
misrepresentation to merchants. Part of its training is to help Coastal
representatives to avoid the pitfalls of intentional or innocent
misrepresentation to merchants in offering its services. In addition, Coastal in
no way fraudulently altered or changed the Agreements, nor did Coastal fraudulently
persuade Ms. [redacted] into signing them. There is no evidence indicating that Coastal
intentionally and knowingly mislead Ms. [redacted], in any way. Ms. [redacted] has
failed to provide any proof that the sales representative took affirmative
steps to prevent her from reading the contracts or that Ms. [redacted] felt
pressured or threatened into signing the contracts. All material terms of the
Agreements are clearly marked and should have been noted by Ms. [redacted]. Further,
Ms. [redacted] failed to cite a single statement that the Coastal representative
made which was inconsistent with the terms of the Agreements she signed. Therefore,
a claim for misrepresentation against Coastal is unsupported.
Ms. [redacted] does have the right to cancel the
processing services with Coastal, at any time, but [redacted] will liable
for any early termination fees in that event. Thus, [redacted] is not
exempt from early termination fees. 
Further, Ms. [redacted] claims that the credit card terminal
was not programmed as guaranteed. This claim is also without merit. If there
are issues with the financial equipment itself, the Agreements outline how to
deal with these issues; termination of the Agreements is not the solution.
Coastal will gladly assist in resolving any concerns that might arise from
equipment malfunction or upgrading.
Moreover, [redacted] also agreed, by signing the
Agreements, that the equipment Lease would be non-cancellable, and therefore
cannot reasonably be surprised by its continuing obligation to make payments
under the Lease. With respect to a commercial finance lease, a lessee’s
contractual promise becomes “irrevocable and independent upon the lessee’s acceptance
of the goods.”  (UCC Art. 2A §
2A-407.)  Here, the Lease for the
equipment is a finance lease under the UCC because it was formed between two
entities in the course of business.  (See
UCC § 2A-103 subd. (g).) Furthermore, Ms. [redacted] accepted the equipment when
it arrived. Upon this acceptance the contract became non-cancellable.
It is also important to note that the Lease and the
MAA are separate agreements, which have no influence on the enforceability of
one another.  As such, any decision to cancel
the MAA would not terminate the Lease and vice versa. The leasing company still
holds the rights under the Lease and Coastal still holds the rights under the
MAA. The separation of each agreement is clearly disclosed in the Agreements.
Any further communications pertaining to the Lease should be made to leasing
company directly.
Coastal regrets Ms. [redacted]’ decision to file this
complaint, but strongly prefers a mutually beneficial resolution to this dispute.
 Coastal values Ms. [redacted]’ business and
would like to attempt to resume a business relationship.  Coastal would like to offer [redacted]
a more competitive offer than what it initially agreed to in an effort to
encourage Ms. [redacted] to stay with Coastal. [redacted] would still enjoy
the advanced technology and service, but would also get even more competitive
rates. In any event, we hope Ms. [redacted] will work with Coastal to find a
positive resolution. Should Ms. [redacted] have any further questions or concerns
please do not hesitate to email [redacted].  
For the firm,
 
[redacted]