Coastal Pay

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This issue will be handled immediately. We apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused you and your business. Your number will be removed from our calling list.

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 read the contract in full and I am aware that them agreeing to pay the previous merchant off was not in the contract. I do have proof of him saying he mislead us and told us wrong. I made sure he sent it in text because I figured that that would be the response. If a company has good customer service they would would go to the root of the source who made these promises and handle it from there. I am not interested in getting better rates. I simply just want the issue at hand resolved. I was hoping things would get handled this way but I will have to take further action. I'm aware that it's not coastal pays fault, unless they train their employees to screw people over,but it was their employee so if they didn't want a bad name for them selves they should take action for their employees wrong doing. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Spoke to business owner regarding the complaint. We came to a satisfactory agreement and removed him from our call list.

To Whom It May Concern:   Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay, LLC (“Coastal”).  This letter is in response to the November 19, 2016 Revdex.com consumer complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by Mr. [redacted] (“Mr. [redacted]”) on behalf of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) regarding...

electronic payment processing services offered to Mr. [redacted] by Coastal. This letter will address Mr. [redacted]’s concerns with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.   Mr. [redacted] alleges that he, while on the phone with Coastal, repeatedly told Coastal that he was not interested in their services and to be removed from their calling list. As a standard business practice, Coastal will call a business to ask if an authorized representative would like to meet with a Coastal sales representative to discuss the electronic payment services that Coastal can offer.  Shortly thereafter, the authorized representative will meet with a Coastal sales representative to learn more about Coastal’s services. Here, Mr. [redacted]’s frustration stems from Coastal’s agent continuing to offer Coastal’s services despite Mr. [redacted] being uninterested. Nonetheless, Coastal abides by its long-standing business operating procedures and consistent with these procedures, Coastal trains its representatives to avoid any customer dissatisfaction or annoyance. Coastal apologizes if its agent was especially eager when speaking to Mr. [redacted]. Coastal’s intention is never to annoy or harass its customers or potential customers. To the contrary, Coastal prides itself in respecting the wishes of its customers and potential customers.   In an effort to respect potential customer’s wishes, Coastal has a strict “Do Not Call” policy (DNC) for businesses who request it. Coastal’s DNC list is constantly revised and updated as to avoid repeated calls to uninterested businesses. Coastal runs on efficient and effective business procedures and does not wish to waste time or resources on potential customers who are not interested in Coastal’s services. Coastal’s main goal is to provide customer satisfaction to its customers and potential customers. Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] are now on Coastal’s DNC list and Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] will not receive any further calls from Coastal. However, please note that because of the nature of the electronic payment processing industry, it is very likely that potential customers receive several calls a day from similar businesses trying to solicit their services. Mr. [redacted] is on Coastal’s DNC list but may have to request the same for other payment companies in the future. As a token of resolution, Coastal would like to offer its services to [redacted] at a competitive rate and to form a business relationship with Mr. [redacted] would enjoy Coastal’s advanced technology and services and would get a very good deal, if choosing to do so. Coastal prides itself upon widespread customer satisfaction and will gladly facilitate a mutually beneficial resolution regardless of Mr. [redacted]’s decision. Coastal confirmed that Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] are on Coastal’s DNC list, so there should no more concerns. Should Mr. [redacted] have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to email me at [redacted]
  For the firm,   [redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:
As you are aware, our firm has the pleasure of
representing Coastal Pay, LLC (“Coastal”). 
This letter is in response to the December 20, 2015 letter, #[redacted],
regarding electronic payment processing agreements between Mr. [redacted]
of Snazzy Pet Bed and Biscuit (“Snazzy”) and Coastal. This letter will readdress
the issues raised in that letter with the hopes of finding an amicable
resolution.
To reiterate the facts, 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.
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]. In Mr. [redacted]’s second complaint
(rejection), he alleges the same things previously addressed, revealing, however, that
the Coastal representative’s response to his inquiry of “NO CONTRACTS AND NO
CHARGE FOR THE CHIP TERMINAL” was that Coastal could, “help you with that.”
Once again, 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) No misrepresentation occurred as it relates
to the terms of the Agreements; 4) Coastal was and is authorized to debit Mr.
[redacted]’s account and applicable cancellation fees apply; and lastly 5)
Coastal will extend an offer of a resolution.
As previously mentioned, the Agreements entered into
are valid and enforceable. Mr. [redacted] is a sophisticated party in the legal
sense since he is a business owner and President of Snazzy. Courts typically
enforce contracts between sophisticated parties, since they are held to higher
standards. Regardless, every party to a contract has the duty to read the terms
of the contract. Although Mr. [redacted] strongly urges he did not want a
contract with Coastal, evidence showing otherwise is plainly manifested in his
signature and initials of the Agreements. Clearly labeled at the top of the
Agreements are Coastal’s logo and the wording, “MERCHANT PROCESSING APPLICATION
AND AGREEMENT” (no emphasis added). The Lease, clearly labeled as a lease of payment
processing equipment, is item 6 on the same said MERCAHNT PROCESSING APPLICATION
AND AGREEMENT, which Mr. [redacted] was under a duty to read. Thus, although
Coastal is unsure about what Mr. [redacted] thought he was signing, under
California law the Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable as to both
parties involved.
Additionally, Mr. [redacted] alleges, albeit not
specifically, that there was communication about no contract or payment
processing equipment 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. Mr. [redacted] also
admits that Coastal did not agree or promise it would do a “no contract” or “no
lease fee” type of agreement with Mr. [redacted], but rather that Coastal could
“help [Mr. [redacted]] with that.” At any rate, if these allegations refer 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 Coastal stated before, Mr. [redacted] 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. 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 with no complaints to Coastal. Coastal representatives did not defraud or
misrepresent their intentions when relaying the services to Mr. [redacted]. 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 wrongfully withdrawing from Snazzy’s bank account. However, Coastal is authorized by and
through the Agreements to charge Snazzy for services rendered. 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 Mr. [redacted] 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.
Ultimately, Coastal’s priority is customer service. As
such, Coastal would like to reoffer 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. As
a business owner, Mr. [redacted] understands that business review/rating
websites frequently contain disparaging or otherwise negative commentary on
unsatisfied customers; yet, these websites are not always indicative of a
business’s true ethical character. Lastly, 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

To Whom It May Concern:
As you are aware, 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 Ms. [redacted] (“Ms. [redacted]”) of Eve
Beauty Salon (“EBS”) and Coastal. This letter will again address the issues
raised in that letter with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.
To reiterate the facts, on or about September 8, 2015,
a Coastal phone representative called EBS 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] met with a
Coastal sales representative. Ms. [redacted] individually and on behalf of EBS 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 First Data Global Leasing,
Inc. (“FDGL”), and a Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal
(collectively, “Agreements”).  On
September 16, 2015, Ms. [redacted] called in wanting to cancel the Agreements.
Ms. [redacted] states that Coastal’s initial response to
this complaint will not resolve her complaints. However, as explained before, 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 EBS. Ms. [redacted] is a sophisticated
business party who entered into a commercial contract on behalf of EBS. Ms.
[redacted], individually and on behalf of EBS, is legally liable for obligations thereunder,
regardless if she agrees to this fact. Ms. [redacted] alleges that Coastal is not
working with her in order to come to an agreement. Conversely, Coastal has
reached out to Ms. [redacted] on several occasions in attempt to alleviate her
concerns and come to a mutual understanding.
Ms. [redacted] alleges that Coastal materially
misrepresented terms of the Agreements. Besides the arguments above confirming
the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Ms. [redacted] signed
the Agreements and accepted the new equipment, makes an actionable material
misrepresentation claim unlikely. Material misrepresentation requires more than
just a broken promise or a breach of contract. 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. 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.
Additionally, Ms. [redacted] alleges that a Coastal sales
agent stated Coastal would not process the Agreements without a Tax ID number. 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 and 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.
Ms. [redacted]’s contention that the contract was
inconsistent with the representation by the Coastal agent we have found no
evidence of anything that contradicts the written contracts other than Ms. [redacted]’s
subjective interpretation of the clear terms. 
Ms. [redacted] cannot rely on her lack of understanding or failure to read the
Agreements. Failure to read the contracts before signing does not relinquish
his obligations under the Agreements, and is not a defense to contract
formation. While it is unfortunate there
was a misunderstanding, it was Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility to read and understand
all terms set forth prior to signing the Agreements. Due to the Ms. [redacted] signing
the Agreements on behalf of herself and EBS, she 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 Agreement prematurely.
In conclusion, Ms. [redacted] stated in her reply that she
needs to cancel the contract immediately. In order to cancel the electronic
payment processing agreement the following steps must be taken:
·        
Ms. [redacted] must
contact Coastal Pay’s Customer Service at: 
(888) 266-1715, and request a cancellation request form and submit the
form via the email or fax number provided.
·        
Pay a $495.00
Early Termination Fee to cancel the Merchant Account Agreement
However, as stated in the Merchant Account Agreement
the Lease of $79.00 per month for 48 months is “Non-Cancellable.” This
is noted in the following two parts of the Agreement:
·        
Merchant Account
Agreement Page 2 of 4
·        
Part I: Confirmation
Page, Paragraph number 9
Again, 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.
Ultimately, Coastal is
committed to customer satisfaction and a mutually beneficial business
relationship.  Coastal is willing to work
with Ms. [redacted] and cancel the Agreements, subject to fees. If Ms. [redacted] desires
to resume her Coastal account, she may do so while still using the financial
equipment and enjoying Coastal’s superior technology and service and will not
be subject to fees. In any event, we hope that Ms. [redacted] will reconsider her
cancellation, and 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,
/s/
[redacted]. [redacted], Esq.
Global Legal Law Firm
JCH/ksc

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 will not tolerate that the Revdex.com closed my complaint when I did not even see my email till after the long weekend. I was sent an email November 23, 2015 and clearly everyone is busy. So, I do not appreciate that my complaint was closed right away even before I could reply. As for Coastal Pay, I need to speak to you, to come to a settlement even after you employee harassed and threatened me. My business owner is now upset with me that you guys are charging her from her account. I do not understand why you guys are being so stubborn for a settlement. I also forgot to state that the agent you all sent to the business lied to me saying that the contract will not get processed until after a business Tax ID is given. I was not able to give that information and so basically your agent lied to me saying that the papers will not be processed till after the Tax ID is given. So what type of liars do you guys hire. This company is clearly a fraud.I need to cancel the contract immediately.
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.This complaint has  NOT been rectified. I spoke with Mr [redacted] last week. He was getting additional information from his staff an promised to get back to me. I have yet to hear back and will attempt to contact him again on Wednesday. In the meantime please DO NOT close this complaint. If you have questions regarding this issue please contact me at [redacted].Thank you,[redacted] Sent from my Windows Phone
Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:   Our firm has the pleasure of representing Coastal Pay, LLC (“Coastal”).  This letter is in response to the November 19, 2016 Revdex.com complaint, #[redacted], regarding electronic payment processing agreements between Mr. [redacted]  (“Mr. [redacted]”) of [redacted]...

[redacted]. dba [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised by Mr. [redacted] with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.   On or about July 20, 2016, Coastal contacted [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, Mr. [redacted], individually and on behalf of [redacted], entered into a Merchant Processing Agreement (“MPA”) to process electronic payments with [redacted] (“[redacted]”), an Equipment Lease Agreement (“Lease”) for electronic payment processing equipment with [redacted], and a Merchant Receipt Purchase Order (“MRPO”) with Coastal (collectively, “Agreements”).  Upon credit approval and acceptance by [redacted] and Ascentium, the equipment was shipped and later accepted by [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] now alleges that Coastal has not “honored promises” made to him during the execution of the Agreements. Mr. [redacted] is requesting cancelation of the Agreements without penalty and reimbursement for the balance owed to his previous processing/leasing company. As such, Coastal will show the following: 1) the validity and enforceability of the Agreements; 2) that Coastal may charge early termination fees pursuant to the Agreements; 3) that there was no misrepresentation of the Agreements; and 4) an offer of resolution.   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]. Mr. [redacted] is a sophisticated business party who entered into a commercial contract on behalf of [redacted]. It is well-established law that Mr. [redacted] has a duty to read all contracts in their entirety before signing them. Once Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements, he became subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements.  The terms of the Agreements clearly state that Mr. [redacted] will be responsible for any applicable early termination fees if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely. As well, Coastal performed their duties by opening a new merchant processing account and sending equipment to [redacted]. Thus, Mr. [redacted] is subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreements.   In addition to early termination fees, Mr. [redacted] agreed that the full balance of the equipment Lease would be due upon any cancelation. 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 Agreements. 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 equipment Lease 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).) Additionally, Mr. [redacted] accepted the equipment when it arrived at [redacted] and upon that acceptance, the Lease became non-cancellable. The terms clearly state that Mr. [redacted] will have to pay the full term of the Lease, plus any additional cancellation fees, if he were to cancel the Lease prematurely.   Mr. [redacted] alleges that Coastal misrepresented terms of the Agreements by failing to reimburse him for funds associated with his previous processor’s cancellation fees, as allegedly “promised” to him. However, if these allegations refer to the sales agent making oral promises which contradicted the terms of the Agreements, they will not hold in court. The Agreements contain a merger clause which limits the terms of the parties’ Agreements to what is in the contract. The Agreements state, “NO ALTERATIONS OR STRIKE-OUTS TO THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED.” Any oral or other agreements unilaterally modifying the Agreements are invalid. Moreover, 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 Mr. [redacted] is subject is written in the Agreements and were signed and initialed by Mr. [redacted]. 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 in court under the parol evidence rule. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements and accepted the new equipment without contention, makes an actionable material misrepresentation claim unlikely.   Further, Coastal representatives did not defraud or misrepresent their intentions when speaking to or meeting with Mr. [redacted]. Coastal proudly grounds itself and trains their employees in standard, proper business practices as to avoid material misrepresentation to merchants. Part of Coastal’s training is to help Coastal representatives avoid the pitfalls of intentional or innocent misrepresentation to merchants in offering Coastal’s services. Furthermore, 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. All material terms of the Agreements are clearly marked and should have been noted by Mr. [redacted]   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. Ascentium 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 the Agreements. Any further communications pertaining to the Lease should be made to Ascentium directly.   Similarly, the Agreements spell out the material terms and obligations of each party. As soon as an account is set up for a merchant, Coastal helps the merchant install his or her new equipment via telephone and responds to any questions or concerns the new merchant may have. Coastal maintains a record of all incoming and outgoing communications with their merchants and keeps notes pertaining to each communication. Here, Coastal’s communication record indicates that on August 29, 2016, Mr. [redacted] called Coastal inquiring about the processing fees agreed to under the Agreements. Coastal reviewed and clarified the saving analysis with Mr. [redacted]. After some discussion, Coastal decided to lower Mr. [redacted]’s processing rates and that same day Coastal sent him an updated version of the Agreements. Please note that the Agreements do not reveal any reimbursement agreement that Mr. [redacted] is claiming.   It was not until September 2016 that Mr. [redacted] requested reimbursement for his previous processors cancelation fees. As stated above, Coastal does not have any record of an agreement, oral or otherwise, showing that Coastal agreed to pay Mr. [redacted]’s previous processor fees. Regardless, Coastal sent Mr. [redacted]’s request for reimbursement to the reimbursement department for review. Thereafter, Coastal sent cancellation letters to Mr. [redacted]’s previous processors. From there, Mr. [redacted] has the responsibility to confirm whether the cancelation was process and what the balance owed to his previous processor is. The reimbursement department makes the final decision after that. Here, the reimbursement department declined Mr. [redacted]’s request for reimbursement because there is no reference in the Agreements that there is such an agreement. Mr. [redacted] has been notified by Coastal, on several occasions, of the reimbursement department’s decision. Coastal’s communication record indicates the same. Nonetheless, Coastal is looking into this matter more in depth and will work directly with Mr. [redacted] if Coastal finds that reimbursement is owed and due.   Ultimately, Coastal is committed to customer satisfaction and a mutually beneficial solution. If Mr. [redacted] has any documents tending to prove there was an agreement for Coastal to pay for previous processing fees, Coastal will gladly review and consider them. Additionally, Coastal would like to offer Mr. [redacted] lower rates, in addition to the advanced technology, service, and support provided by Coastal, if Mr. [redacted] will resume processing with Coastal. In any event, we hope that Mr. [redacted] will reconsider his request to cancel and will work with Coastal to find a positive resolution. Should Mr. [redacted] have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to email me at [redacted]  
  For the firm,   /s/ [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.
   Here's some of what happened and why I feel the way I do and continue to fight this.
I have attached the Coastal pay guarantee that was sent to me on January 29, 2016. In that document it states that if I am loosing money within the 4 years I can cancel  the processing  agreement with no cancellation fee. Here how I am loosing money. When I received the equipment it was not working the way [redacted] told us it would. I called him that night and also talked with [redacted] and clover on a three way call. I refuse to pay more and I want to cancel. Also, That night [redacted] tol me she would have [redacted] get a hold of me. Never heard a word. [redacted] came up the next morning and was in the salon for almost 3 hours and didn't have the register working the way I was told it would work. He was on the phone with whoever trying to figure it out and using the help tab. He left that day with me waiting on how to use the register the way I wanted it to. Which he had said he understood what I was wanting from the start but still cant seem to figure it out. NO, I don't want anyone spending money on the apps to make it work. This should have been explained up front for all the features I wanted would cost more. Also, I lost money the 4 days that I had it hooked up in my business because I wasn't going to use something that wasn't working 100% the way I wanted it to. I'm not training employees on a software that isn't working the way I was told it would. [redacted] has been helpful to try and figure this out, but he has been told he isn't allowed to talk to us anymore. Also, take a look at the bottom of the attached document I sent with this email. If I contact within 7 days to cancel I can cancel it as well. When I was told it only take a couple of days to get the paperwork. When I contacted [redacted] saying I still haven't received paperwork and I'm beingging to think this is a scam and I'm gonna cancel it. HE said no, no, your not gonna get burned in this, I don't play those games and no matter what there are ways out of it. I continued to contact him everyday until I got this paperwork. it didn't take 2 days to get to me. I did the paperwork with [redacted] on January 29, 2016 and I didn't get the copied until Feb 8, 2016. There is a lot that happened in the mean time as well. Such as [redacted] would stop in randomly for really no reason. Each time he had stop there was other staff in the business that heard how he was. Offering me valium because I was hounding him about paperwork. Valium is a drug and joke or not this is not okay. One of his days that he was in the area he came into the business 3 times, during that time he was saying how he believes that he works better drunk. He has offered valium to me three different times. He also bummed cigarettes from an employee of mine because I was making him stressed to smoke, My employee said that she offered him the cigarettes to him because she felt really uneasy around him. The day we did the paperwork I asked to make copies and he said no need cause you will return copies to me in two days and doesn't play those games. Everytime he has enter the business there has been other staff there that has witness this and said how wrong this is.
Regards,
[redacted]

These people (if you can call them that) called my office 4 times were rude to our staff and just hung up the phone when we asked for more info.
Then they kept calling back and hanging up. I suggest to ANY company NOT to allow these people to sell you anything.
If this is the way these people do business you can only imagine what would happen if you actually used their services

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]

To Whom It May Concern:
As you are aware, our firm has the pleasure of
representing Coastal Pay, LLC (“Coastal”). 
This letter is in response to the December 20, 2015 letter, #[redacted],
regarding electronic payment processing agreements between Mr. [redacted]
of Snazzy Pet Bed and Biscuit (“Snazzy”) and Coastal. This letter will readdress
the issues raised in that letter with the hopes of finding an amicable
resolution.
To reiterate the facts, 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.
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]. In Mr. [redacted]’s second complaint
(rejection), he alleges the same things previously addressed, revealing, however, that
the Coastal representative’s response to his inquiry of “NO CONTRACTS AND NO
CHARGE FOR THE CHIP TERMINAL” was that Coastal could, “help you with that.”
Once again, 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) No misrepresentation occurred as it relates
to the terms of the Agreements; 4) Coastal was and is authorized to debit Mr.
[redacted]’s account and applicable cancellation fees apply; and lastly 5)
Coastal will extend an offer of a resolution.
As previously mentioned, the Agreements entered into
are valid and enforceable. Mr. [redacted] is a sophisticated party in the legal
sense since he is a business owner and President of Snazzy. Courts typically
enforce contracts between sophisticated parties, since they are held to higher
standards. Regardless, every party to a contract has the duty to read the terms
of the contract. Although Mr. [redacted] strongly urges he did not want a
contract with Coastal, evidence showing otherwise is plainly manifested in his
signature and initials of the Agreements. Clearly labeled at the top of the
Agreements are Coastal’s logo and the wording, “MERCHANT PROCESSING APPLICATION
AND AGREEMENT” (no emphasis added). The Lease, clearly labeled as a lease of payment
processing equipment, is item 6 on the same said MERCAHNT PROCESSING APPLICATION
AND AGREEMENT, which Mr. [redacted] was under a duty to read. Thus, although
Coastal is unsure about what Mr. [redacted] thought he was signing, under
California law the Agreements entered into are valid and enforceable as to both
parties involved.
Additionally, Mr. [redacted] alleges, albeit not
specifically, that there was communication about no contract or payment
processing equipment 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. Mr. [redacted] also
admits that Coastal did not agree or promise it would do a “no contract” or “no
lease fee” type of agreement with Mr. [redacted], but rather that Coastal could
“help [Mr. [redacted]] with that.” At any rate, if these allegations refer 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 Coastal stated before, Mr. [redacted] 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. 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 with no complaints to Coastal. Coastal representatives did not defraud or
misrepresent their intentions when relaying the services to Mr. [redacted]. 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 wrongfully withdrawing from Snazzy’s bank account. However, Coastal is authorized by and
through the Agreements to charge Snazzy for services rendered. 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 Mr. [redacted] 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.
Ultimately, Coastal’s priority is customer service. As
such, Coastal would like to reoffer 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. As
a business owner, Mr. [redacted] understands that business review/rating
websites frequently contain disparaging or otherwise negative commentary on
unsatisfied customers; yet, these websites are not always indicative of a
business’s true ethical character. Lastly, 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

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 [redacted] and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that complaint
with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.
To reiterate the facts, on or about January 29, 2016, a
Coastal sales representative met with Ms. [redacted] to discuss the electronic payment
services that Coastal could offer [redacted]. 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].
In Ms. [redacted]s’s response, she alleges that the
documents state that she can cancel the Agreements if she is losing money within
the contractual 4 year term without cancellation fees. Ms. [redacted]s implies that shortly after she endorsed
the Agreements, she realized that the services and costs being provided
differed than what was represented to her. While there may have been some
disparity between the actual processing rates received and the estimated processing
rates, that does not mean the processing rates were incorrect. The estimates provided
to Ms. [redacted]s by Coastal were just that, estimates. Additionally, for all
intents and purposes, the estimate was met in light of how close the actual
rates were to the estimated rates. As stated in the Agreements, the actual
processing rates received by merchants depend upon what rates each individual
merchant qualifies for and the information provided to Coastal by the merchant.
As
well, Ms. [redacted] appears to have a misunderstanding of Coastal’s cancelation
policies if a merchant finds better processing rates.  Coastal offers its merchants a meet-or-beat
guarantee to ensure that its merchants are receiving the most competitive rates
and quality of service. Regardless, Ms. [redacted]s has not used Coastal’s services
or the leased equipment consistently enough to demonstration that she is in
fact losing money. In addition, Ms. [redacted] has never provided competing
processing rates so that Coastal can meet-or-beat them. Instead, during this
time Ms. [redacted]s has retained possession of the leased equipment and paid the
monthly fees, indicating that she has full knowledge of the facts surrounding
the terms and conditions of the Agreements. Within the Agreements, it shows Ms.
[redacted]s how much money she is saving per month using Coastal’s system rather
than her previous processor.  However, Ms.
[redacted]s needs to use the terminal on a consistent basis to provide evidence
that she is actually losing money from Coastal’s services.  Coastal apologizes for any equipment issues
that may have occurred. If there are still issues with the equipment itself, the
Agreements outline how to deal with these issues and termination of the
Agreements is not the solution. Coastal will gladly assist in resolving any
concerns that might arise from equipment malfunction or needed upgrading. As
stated by Ms. [redacted]s, Coastal has been trying to resolve her issues through
numerous phone calls and a sales representatives coming back to her business to
assist her in terminal installment.  If
there is still any terminal malfunction, Coastal will happily replace the
terminal for one that is operating to Ms. [redacted]s’s satisfaction.
As for Ms. [redacted]s’s allegation that she did not
receive her paperwork in a timely manner and that she could cancel the Agreements
within 7 days, Ms. [redacted]s did not expressly cancel the Agreements within the
allotted 7 days.  Due to Ms. [redacted]s’s
failure to send Coastal cancellation documentation within the 7 days outlined
in the Agreements, she is now obligated to the Agreements and the terms and
conditions within them.  Ms. [redacted]s had
knowledge of the 7 day cancellation period, as it was her duty to read and
understand all terms set forth in the Agreements prior to signing, and despite that
knowledge she did not cancel the Agreements. As stated before, 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. By signing the
documents, Ms. [redacted]’s knew the Agreements would be irrevocable. As for the
paperwork, Coastal apologizes that Ms. [redacted]’s did not receive her paperwork
in a two-day period, and will take a further look into when the documents were
mailed to confirm that she did not receive them.  If Ms. [redacted]’s could provide any further
information, we’d be happy to address that.
Ms. [redacted]s further alleges that it was not explained
to her that the features she wanted would cost more.  However, as stated before, offer, acceptance,
and consideration are found in the Agreements, as Coastal offered their
services in exchange for a monthly service fee from [redacted], making
the Agreements enforceable.  Ms. [redacted]s
has a duty to read the Agreements, in their entirety, as a reasonable business
owner before signing the documents.  Ms.
[redacted]s’ failure to diligently read and understand the Agreements before
signing them cannot be used as a defense to the enforceability of the
Agreements.  Within the Agreements, it
details what Ms. [redacted]s is paying for and the equipment she would be
receiving. This is evidenced by her initials on the page indicating she read
and understood exactly what she would be receiving from Coastal.  If there were any features or equipment
missing from the Agreements at the time, she should have informed the Sales
Representative with her so it could be added into the written Agreements.  As the Agreements are fully integrated, these
Agreements detailed the cost of the equipment she was leasing. If the features
Ms. [redacted]’s believes she was missing were not displayed on the written
Agreements, as a reasonable business owner, she had knowledge that she was not
receiving these items nor paying for them. Coastal did not defraud or
misrepresent its intentions when meeting or speaking with Ms. [redacted]. There
was no misrepresentation by Coastal or its representatives that she would be
receiving these items and that they would come at no cost.
In regards to the Sales Representative Ms. [redacted]s
expresses concerns about, as stated before, 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.  The actions by the sales representative do not
represent the views of Coastal nor do they reflect on Coastal.  Coastal will conduct an internal
investigation regarding the actions of the sales representative reflected in
Ms. [redacted]’s response.
Regardless, Ms. [redacted] does have the right to cancel
the processing services with Coastal, at any time, but [redacted] will
liable for any applicable early termination fees in that event. Ms. [redacted]’s
personally guaranteed the Agreements and she nor [redacted] will not be
exempt from paying the fees if there is a cancellation.
As stated in the previous letter, 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]
[redacted]
[redacted]

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

November 19, 2016 Revdex.com consumer complaint, #[redacted] (“Complaint”), made by Mr. [redacted] (“Mr. [redacted]”) on behalf of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) regarding electronic payment processing services offered to Mr. [redacted] by Coastal. This letter will address Mr. [redacted]’s concerns with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.   Mr. [redacted] alleges that he, while on the phone with Coastal, repeatedly told Coastal that he was not interested in their services and to be removed from their calling list. As a standard business practice, Coastal will call a business to ask if an authorized representative would like to meet with a Coastal sales representative to discuss the electronic payment services that Coastal can offer.  Shortly thereafter, the authorized representative will meet with a Coastal sales representative to learn more about Coastal’s services. Here, Mr. [redacted]’s frustration stems from Coastal’s agent continuing to offer Coastal’s services despite Mr. [redacted] being uninterested. Nonetheless, Coastal abides by its long-standing business operating procedures and consistent with these procedures, Coastal trains its representatives to avoid any customer dissatisfaction or annoyance. Coastal apologizes if its agent was especially eager when speaking to Mr. [redacted]. Coastal’s intention is never to annoy or harass its customers or potential customers. To the contrary, Coastal prides itself in respecting the wishes of its customers and potential customers.   In an effort to respect potential customer’s wishes, Coastal has a strict “Do Not Call” policy (DNC) for businesses who request it. Coastal’s DNC list is constantly revised and updated as to avoid repeated calls to uninterested businesses. Coastal runs on efficient and effective business procedures and does not wish to waste time or resources on potential customers who are not interested in Coastal’s services. Coastal’s main goal is to provide customer satisfaction to its customers and potential customers. Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] are now on Coastal’s DNC list and Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] will not receive any further calls from Coastal. However, please note that because of the nature of the electronic payment processing industry, it is very likely that potential customers receive several calls a day from similar businesses trying to solicit their services. Mr. [redacted] is on Coastal’s DNC list but may have to request the same for other payment companies in the future. As a token of resolution, Coastal would like to offer its services to [redacted] at a competitive rate and to form a business relationship with Mr. [redacted] would enjoy Coastal’s advanced technology and services and would get a very good deal, if choosing to do so. Coastal prides itself upon widespread customer satisfaction and will gladly facilitate a mutually beneficial resolution regardless of Mr. [redacted]’s decision. Coastal confirmed that Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] are on Coastal’s DNC list, so there should no more concerns. Should Mr. [redacted] have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to email me at [redacted]
  For the firm,   [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]

Spoke to the business owner twice. We agreed to come up with a solution where we would be saving money as we promised. 
Best Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern:
As you are aware, 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 Ms. [redacted] (“Ms. [redacted]”) of Eve
Beauty Salon (“EBS”) and Coastal. This letter will again address the issues
raised in that letter with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution.
To reiterate the facts, on or about September 8, 2015,
a Coastal phone representative called EBS 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] met with a
Coastal sales representative. Ms. [redacted] individually and on behalf of EBS 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 First Data Global Leasing,
Inc. (“FDGL”), and a Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal
(collectively, “Agreements”).  On
September 16, 2015, Ms. [redacted] called in wanting to cancel the Agreements.
Ms. [redacted] states that Coastal’s initial response to
this complaint will not resolve her complaints. However, as explained before, 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 EBS. Ms. [redacted] is a sophisticated
business party who entered into a commercial contract on behalf of EBS. Ms.
[redacted], individually and on behalf of EBS, is legally liable for obligations thereunder,
regardless if she agrees to this fact. Ms. [redacted] alleges that Coastal is not
working with her in order to come to an agreement. Conversely, Coastal has
reached out to Ms. [redacted] on several occasions in attempt to alleviate her
concerns and come to a mutual understanding.
Ms. [redacted] alleges that Coastal materially
misrepresented terms of the Agreements. Besides the arguments above confirming
the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Ms. [redacted] signed
the Agreements and accepted the new equipment, makes an actionable material
misrepresentation claim unlikely. Material misrepresentation requires more than
just a broken promise or a breach of contract. 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. 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.
Additionally, Ms. [redacted] alleges that a Coastal sales
agent stated Coastal would not process the Agreements without a Tax ID number. 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 and 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.
Ms. [redacted]’s contention that the contract was
inconsistent with the representation by the Coastal agent we have found no
evidence of anything that contradicts the written contracts other than Ms. [redacted]’s
subjective interpretation of the clear terms. 
Ms. [redacted] cannot rely on her lack of understanding or failure to read the
Agreements. Failure to read the contracts before signing does not relinquish
his obligations under the Agreements, and is not a defense to contract
formation. While it is unfortunate there
was a misunderstanding, it was Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility to read and understand
all terms set forth prior to signing the Agreements. Due to the Ms. [redacted] signing
the Agreements on behalf of herself and EBS, she 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 Agreement prematurely.
In conclusion, Ms. [redacted] stated in her reply that she
needs to cancel the contract immediately. In order to cancel the electronic
payment processing agreement the following steps must be taken:
·        
Ms. [redacted] must
contact Coastal Pay’s Customer Service at: 
(888) 266-1715, and request a cancellation request form and submit the
form via the email or fax number provided.
·        
Pay a $495.00
Early Termination Fee to cancel the Merchant Account Agreement
However, as stated in the Merchant Account Agreement
the Lease of $79.00 per month for 48 months is “Non-Cancellable.” This
is noted in the following two parts of the Agreement:
·        
Merchant Account
Agreement Page 2 of 4
·        
Part I: Confirmation
Page, Paragraph number 9
Again, 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.
Ultimately, Coastal is
committed to customer satisfaction and a mutually beneficial business
relationship.  Coastal is willing to work
with Ms. [redacted] and cancel the Agreements, subject to fees. If Ms. [redacted] desires
to resume her Coastal account, she may do so while still using the financial
equipment and enjoying Coastal’s superior technology and service and will not
be subject to fees. In any event, we hope that Ms. [redacted] will reconsider her
cancellation, and work with Coastal to find a positive resolution. Should Ms.
[redacted] have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email
[redacted]@[redacted].  
For the firm,
/s/
[redacted], Esq.
Global Legal Law Firm
JCH/ksc

After speaking with the representative, he never told anyone to shut up. There were only 3 calls made according to the call log. The owner was busy the first 2 times.

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 Mr. [redacted] (“Mr. [redacted]”) of [redacted] Tires and Wheels LLC (“[redacted]”) and Coastal. This letter will address the issues raised in that letter with the hopes of achieving an amicable resolution. On or about June 21, 2016, Coastal contacted [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, Mr. [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 First Data Global Leasing, Inc. (“FDGL”), and a Merchant Acknowledgement Agreement (“MAA”) with Coastal (collectively, “Agreements”).  Upon credit approval and acceptance by FDMS and FDGL, the equipment was shipped and later accepted by [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] now alleges that Coastal has not delivered the “promises” made to him and is requesting to cancel his Agreements prematurely without any cancellation fees. 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]. Mr. [redacted] is a sophisticated business party who entered into a commercial contract on behalf of [redacted]. It is well-established law that Mr. [redacted]’s duty to read contracts in their entirety before signing them is imputed on him.  Once Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements, Mr. [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 and sending equipment. The terms of the Agreement clearly state that Mr. [redacted] will be subject to any applicable early termination fees if he were to cancel the Agreements prematurely. Mr. [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. 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] alleges that Coastal materially misrepresented terms of the Agreements by not delivering the promises that were made to him and by failing to disclose additional charges associated with his equipment lease. First, if these allegations refer to the sales agent making oral promises which contradicted the terms of the Agreements, it will not hold up 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 Mr. [redacted] is subject is written in the Agreements and were signed and initialed by Mr. [redacted]. Here, 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. Besides the arguments above confirming the validity and enforceability of the Agreements, the fact that Mr. [redacted] signed the Agreements and accepted the new equipment without contention, makes an actionable material misrepresentation claim unlikely. Material misrepresentation requires more than just a broken promise. Also, as Mr. [redacted] is making these claims with respect to a business, he must prove how these statements contradict the written contracts he entered into. Mr. [redacted] also complains that his account is missing a deposit due for his August 8, 2016 daily sales in the amount of $881.65. Coastal maintains a log of all communications, and the notes pertaining to this issue indicate that Coastal was first made of aware of this issue by Mr. [redacted] on August 10, 2016, one day before Mr. [redacted] filed his complaint. Since then Coastal has been working with Mr. [redacted], FDMS, and Mr. [redacted]’s bank to investigate why this issue occurred and to ensure that Mr. [redacted]’s account is promptly credited the outstanding amount owed. Ultimately, Coastal is committed to customer satisfaction and a mutually beneficial business relationship. Coastal is willing to work with Mr. [redacted] and correct any errors within their power. If Mr. [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 Mr. [redacted] will reconsider his request to cancel his account, and work with Coastal to find a positive resolution. Should Mr. [redacted] have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to email me at [redacted].   For the firm, /s/ [redacted]
Global Legal Law Firm [redacted]