Crystal Foods Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***Dear ***, Thank you so much for taking the time to help us solve this issue I am rejecting this response because: 1) I've recently contacted the *** *** client relation services and was informed that all their garments were tested and approved for dry clean before the required care label is attachedThe manufacturer therefore believed that this particular damage was due to the failure to follow care label instructions and should be assigned to the dry cleanerThe representative that I've spoken with from *** *** was agreed to send me the approved dry clean test result for this particular garmentGiven the process time could take up to two weeks, I therefore will follow up with you as soon as I get the test result from them. 2) Although the manager described her store as a "drop-off/pick-up" station for dry clean, I believe her store is still responsible for the damage caused in the care process First of all, I have to clarify that I was not informed of this third company's existence until the day I went to pick up my garmentI then had to ask this store manager so many times before she finally agreed to provide me this third company's contact informationAfter speaking with this third company dry clean place, they asked me to delegate my issue back to Crystal Foods Inc as that was the place where I dropped off my garment and paid for dry clean service. Please let me know if you any questions or need any additional information from meI will follow up with you shortly bt sending you the test result from *** ***. Thanks, *** ***

[redacted]Revdex.com1411 K St. NW, 10th FloorWashington, D.C., 20005Dear [redacted],Hello, its Inrok *. K** (hereinafter "i" or "me") once again, the manager of Crystal Foods Inc., [redacted], Arlington, VA. [redacted] (hereinafter "the store" or "we" or "our" or "us"). I am writing this letter in response to the Jan. 12, 2017 response, to our reply, to the complaint filed against Crystal Foods with ID of [redacted].For the sake of brevity, please refer to our previous response for the background information.According to the customer's response, she rejected our reply for the following reasons:1.  [redacted] alleged that "all their garments were tested and approved for dry clean before the required label is attached" and therefore, [redacted] "believed that this particular damage was due to the failure to follow care label instructions and should be assigned to the dry cleaner"; and2. "Although the manager described her store as a drop off/pick up station for dry clean, I believe her store is still responsible for the damaged caused ins the care process."Our previous response's proposed theories for the cause of the alleged damage to the customer's coat were simply that: proposed theories.As for the store's liability for the alleged damages, the store is not liable for the alleged damages to the customer's coat, as it will be clear following my explanation of my legal duties under Virginia law, as well as references to my previous explanation of my absolute fulfilment of my due care and duties required under Virginia law.It is unfortunate that the customer was aggrieved during the transaction. However, at the end of the day, the fact remains that:(1) Crystal Foods and the customer were engaged in a mutually beneficial bailment;(2) Crystal Foods fulfilled the store's duty in the mutually beneficial bailment as the bailee;(3) The customer fulfilled her duties as the bailor in the mutually beneficial bailment by paying the price for dey cleaning her coat; and(4) The transaction is complete without further action required by Crystal Foods.The following section will explain the applicable laws and Virginia precedent and will clearly demonstrate that the store is not liable for the alleged damages.Applicable Laws and PrecedentUnder common law, a bailment is generally defined as "a delivery of goods or personal property, by one person to another, in trust for the execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purpose of the trust."In this case, Crystal Food is the bailee entrusted with the customer's -the bailor's-coat in a mutually beneficial contract to deliver the coat to the dry cleaning store to be dry cleaned and returned, in conformity with the purpose of the trust, in this case, dry cleaning."When there is a bailment for the mutual advantage of bailor and bailee, the bailee is required to exercise ordinary care for the preservation and protection of the goods. He is not an insurer. He is required to exercise that degree of care which a person of reasonable prudence would use with respect to his own goods."In the case at hand, Crystal Foods, as the bailee, is required to exercise ordinary care in making sure that a garment noted for dry clean only is designated as dry clean only before being delivered to the dry cleaning company.As evidenced by the copy of the dry cleaning ticket (copy available at the end of the document as Attachment 1), the customer's coat was designated and reserved only for dry-clean-only garments.It's crystal clear that Crystal Foods was exercising ordinary care in making sure that the customer's coat, noted for dry clean only, was designated as dry clean only before being delivered to the dry cleaning company.As clearly explained by the Fourth Circuit, Crystal Foods was the bailee, not an insurer. Crystal Foods fulfilled the store's duties as the bailee. Crystal Foods never had any duties as an insurer. That's clear under the applicable law.In deep contrast to our clear showing of fulfilment of duty, the customer simply, and without any objective proof, argued: "I believe her store is still responsible for the damage caused in the care process."Her argument that she believes the store is still responsible utterly fails under Pinehurst, Inc. v. Schlamowitz. In that case, the Fourth Circuit clearly explainewd who has the burden of proof:"When, of course, a bailor proves the bailment and a failure to return the goods, he proves a primo facie case, shifting the burden of going forward with the evidence of the bailee. This is because the explanation usually is within the exclusive or primary knowledge of the bailee. However, the burden of persuasion never shift. Wherever the burden of goint forward with proof may lie, the burden of persuading the finder of fact that the loss was due to the bailee's want of due diligence remains upon the bailor.'In the case at hand, we demonstrated above that Crystal Foods fulfilled its duty as the bailee. However, as the appeals court noted, the burden of persuasion never shifts. The customer has the burden of showing that the alleged damaged was due to "want to dur diligence" by Crystal Foods. The customer utterly fails to do so. She hasn't shown that the damage was due to want of due diligence by Crystal Foods as simply arguing "I still believe" hardly meets any level of showing "want of due diligence."[redacted] TestsNow, with regard to her [redacted]'s test of the garments, there are unclear points.Specifically, it's unclear whether the garment [redacted] is testing is a sample cut directly from the coat she owns or is a garment that [redacted] will provide and test on its own. What [redacted] is testing for is a design defect present in all of the garment in the same model coat as the customer's coat. However the reaction could be a manufacturing defect specific to her coat that occurred during the manufacturing of her specific coat. Further, there could be variables between the dry cleaning solutions used by [redacted] compared to what the dry cleaning company uses to confirm to Virginia's legal standards.Therefore, [redacted]'s test results hold no weight as evidence presented to show Crystal Food's alleged liability in the specific case under applicable Virginia law.ConclusionAs explained in the previous letter and this letter, Crystal Foods fulfilled it's duties in the mutually beneficial bailment and therefore is not liable for the alleged damages.Thank you for your time, [redacted]. If you require more information, please contact me and I will respond promptly. Thank you.Sincerely,Inrok *. K**Crystal Foods Inc.[redacted]Arlington, VA 2202[redacted]

My name is Inrok *. K** (hereinafter "I" or "me") and I am the manager of Crystal Foods Inc., [redacted] Arlington, Va.[redacted] (hereinafter "the store" or "we" or "our" or "us"). I am writing this letter in response to a Dec. 22, 2016 complaint filed against Crystal Foods with ID of...

[redacted].Following the instructions on the Dec. 23, 2016 letter sent from the Revdex.com (hereinafter "Revdex.com"), this letter will not contain any information personally identifying the customer (hereinafter "the customer" or "she" or "her"). Additionally, the picture attached to this letter will have pertinent information redacted. However, if you require the original, unedited version, please let me know and I will forward the file promptly.Store InformationI regret that the customer had a negative experience with us, as it does not represent the quality of services that we provide. Before I explain the situation from my perspective and refute her allegations, I feel it is necessary to describe the store's operations, as the customer seems to have a basic misunderstanding of the store's function as a dry cleaning, drop-off/pick-up station.Located in the basement level of Crystal House apartment building 1, we provide customers with groceries, wine, beer and other consumer goods. In addition to being a convenient store, we also function as a dry cleaning and laundry drop-off/pick-up station. After customers drop of their articles of clothing to be cleaned and specify the method of cleaning, we send the articles of clothing to a dry cleaning company (hereinafter "the dry cleaning company"). For the purposes of this letter, won't identify the dry cleaning company but if you require more information about the dry cleaning company, please let me know and I will provide it promptly.As a drop-off/pick-up station, we do not perform the actual dry cleaning or laundry process-the dry cleaning company does. Our obligation to customers is to take their clothes, send the clothes to the dry clearing company with proper instructions, receive the cleaned clothing from the dry cleaning company, and return the cleaned clothing to the customer.Therefore, the customer's description of the store as "this dry cleaners located on the basement level of Crystal House" is incorrect. We are a drop-off/pick-up station, not a dry cleaner.Given this background information, I would like to give my side of the situation described in complaint ID [redacted].The Customer Drops Off Her Coat On Monday, Dec. 19, 2016 at 5:53 PM, the customer brought a single down overcoat to be dry cleaned. As I always do, I Inspected the clothing tags for special cleaning instructions, and saw that the coat specified that it should be cleaned by "dry clean only." After determining that the coat should be dry cleaned, asked the customer whether the coat filling is 100% pure down or mixed with other filling RECE | VEL : Dec 29 2016 O:40pm 31.1.233 (1:11 F339.951 CR''STAL FOODS FÅGE (2material. I did so because the prices to dry clean a pure down coat compared to a mixed down coat are different. The customer specified that it was mixed with other filling material, and therefore, I charged the customer the proper price to dry clean a down coat with mixed filling material.The customer did not give any other special instructions.Accordingly, I specified in the ticket to the dry cleaning company, that the coat must be cleaned by dry cleaning only, as instructed in the coat's tag.The fact that the coat was specified as a dry-clean-only item is also evidenced by the fact that the ticket for the coat (Attachment 1), a copy of which is given to the customer and the dry cleaning company, has an internal code that starts with the letter D-all tickets that start with the letter D means, dry cleaning only. This internal code is and has been used between the store and the dry cleaning company for many years without fault,As such, the customer's allegations that the damages were caused by "failure to follow the care label instructions' are baseless.Only the Customer's Coat Was AffectedWith proper labels affixed, the customer's coat was sent to the dry cleaning company. Subsequently, the dry cleaning company dry cleaned the customer's coat along with other articles of clothing designated to be dry cleaned.According to the dry cleaning company's employee who performed the cleaning process (again, full name can be provided upon proper request), other articles of clothing in the same batch as the customer's coat didn't show any signs of discoloring, damage, stain or any other changes, it was only the customer's coat that appeared to be altered. The dry cleaning company employee assured me that the customer's coat was properly dry cleaned, not washed, along with other articles of clothing that needed to be dry cleaned.In other words, the customer's clothing was cleaned by proper means-dry cleaning--the process of which, didn't damage or alter other pieces of clothing in the same batch. It was only the customer's coat that seemed to have been altered in the process,Therefore, the cause of the alleged damage can't be due to any negligence of improper care or failure to follow care instructions by me or the dry cleaning company. Further, the cause of the alleged damage can't be due to a defect in the standard dry cleaning process employed by the dry cleaning company, as other items that went through the same dry cleaning process in the same batch weren’t damaged.If I had to guess the cause of the alleged damages, I believe it could be due to the coat fabric's previously unknown, unusual sensitivity or reactiveness to standard dry cleaning process. I haven't had the opportunity to ask the customer whether she has previously dry cleaned the coat, and if so, whether the dry cleaning process affected the coat. However, I deduce that this was the customer's first time dry cleaning the coat, as according to her complaint, she purchased the coat on Nov. 19, 2016-exactly one month before bringing it to the store to be sent for dry cleaning. tseems highly unlikely that the customer would dry clean a down coat more than once within one month period after purchasing it. CEIWEd : Dec 29 2016 01:40pm Ø1? ?11? 2?1?1E ?11:11 7?1387?E1 7E CR''STAL FOODS FÅGE (3Already Contacted the Store and Everything is ResolvedWhen the customer came to pick up her coat on Dec. 21, 2016, she immediately inspected the sleeves, where there were discoloring, and asked about the cause of the changes. After apologizing for the inconvenience explained to her that followed the instructions on her coat, for the coat to be dry cleaned only. I also explained that the dry cleaning company cleaned it with other dry clean-only clothing and that other articles of clothing didn't have any problems. As such, the customer's allegations that failed to apologize or provide an explanation is completely unfounded.Demanding that give her the contact information for the dry cleaning company, the customer became very agitated and rude, cursing and yelling at me. I was shocked and hurt by her aggressive demeanor and crude language, but remained calm and gave the customer the phone number to the dry cleaning store. The dry cleaning company's manager subsequently told me that the customer contacted them to discuss her complaints.However, on Dec. 27, 2016 at 2:42 PM, a woman wearing the same coat as the customer's coat at issue came to the store and identified herself as the customer's friend (hereinafter "the friend"). At this point in time, my husband, who is also a manager at the store, was at the counter. The friend presented the dry cleaning pick-up ticket designated for the customer's coat to pick it up.in doing so, the friend explained that the customer had already contacted the manufacturer of the coat and that "everything has been resolved." Considering the ongoing problem involving the coat, my husband thought it was important to note that the customer had already contacted the manufacturer. This is evidenced in by the notes "12/27" and "contacted already" written by my husband on the bottom of the store's copy of the dry cleaning ticket (Attachment 1).The friend then paid $23.60 for the dry cleaning and took the customer's coat, concluding the transaction. Subsequently, we received the Revdex.com complaint.Conclusion Overall, the alleged damage to the customer's coat weren't caused by any negligence or improper care on my part or the dry cleaning company's part. I performed all due diligence to make sure that the cleaning instructions were properly labeled and followed, and that the coat was returned on time. The dry cleaning company performed all due diligence by cleaning the clothing in a batch of dry clean-only clothing. Despite these efforts, it seems the customer's clothing reacted differently compared to other articles of clothing, resulting in the alleged damages.Thank you for your time, [redacted]. If you require more information, please contact me and I will respond promptly.Sincerely, Inrok *. K** Crystal Foods Inc.[redacted] Arlington, Va, [redacted]