Foreman Lockers LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/12/21) */ Foreman concedes that there was a dimensional error in one component of its locker system supplied to [redacted] ***: locker wall dividers were shipped in our standard 21" depth instead of the specified 18" depthThis was an error, not something done "knowingly"All other parts of the system were manufactured to the specified 18" depth, with the exception of the finished end panels which are routinely cut on-site to field conditions This was a municipal construction project under completion deadlineWhen the error was identified [redacted] requested new parts or credit for field modification & assurance that modified product would be fully warrantedAt the time our factory Saw was not working and under repair so we could not supply new parts in time to meet nedateSince the parts were oversized they could be field modified to expedite completion and save unnecessary duplication costField modification is routine in knocked-down product to accommodate special field conditions (this is what we do "all the time", not send out incorrect parts)The parts were only 1/8" thick and in our experience can be cut sheets at a time on a standard table saw with a 60tooth bladeThis cutting is not significantly different than cutting NC- with our factory saw and no edges of the dividers are exposed when assembly is completeForeman , acknowledged the time and labor cost significance of recommended field mods and asked [redacted] to determine how much it would cost (Labor & equipment rental expenses vary across the country) and we would cover itHis assistant estimated $500, which would more than cover the cost of tool rental and the additional time to cut the partsForeman agreed to cover that cost and reissued our final invoice for the balance due reflecting the $creditThere were several other problems smaller problems with the product but there were also problems with the staffing, communication & timeliness of the installing Subcontractor, [redacted] ***Because of lack of communication with ***, Foreman had to resort to direct contact with the General Contractor to get everything resolvedThe GC was finally satisfied with the product but sufficiently concerned with the ***'s lack of communication & inconsistent laborers that they issued a joint-check to [redacted] for material payment to Foreman for the 50% balance dueThe a en' g adjusted balance due is $($minus the credit) [redacted] is withholding final payment now claiming additional costs equivalent to that amount while providing no supporting documentation and threatening litigation if we do not agreeForeman has maintained throughout that the field modifications in no way compromise the integrity of the product and that it will be fully warranted to the end-user customer Desired Resolution: Foreman admitted it's errors and made good-faith effort to support the client at every pointWe agreed to the originally requested $(10%) credit for costs incurred due to our errorsHowever we do not agree that the client is entitled to additional compensation for his trouble without supporting proof of said costs and certainly not 1/the value of the original contractForeman is prepared to issue warranty which will be in full effect, with a special clause including the field modificationsHowever Foreman declines to remove the standard clause that indicates the warranty becomes effective only once the product is paid for in fullWhen [redacted] signs and releases the final payment check from the General Contractor to Foreman we will issue the requested warrantyForeman is happy to provide Revdex.com with copies of email threads, invoices, warranty & other documents supporting our understanding of the situation and our position on it's appropriate resolution [redacted] K ox Business Affairs FOREMAN Products LLC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/21) */
Foreman concedes that there was a dimensional error in one component of its locker system supplied to [redacted]: locker wall dividers were shipped in our standard 21" depth instead of the specified 18" depth. This was an error, not something...

done "knowingly". All other parts of the system were manufactured to the specified 18" depth, with the exception of the finished end panels which are routinely cut on-site to field conditions.
This was a municipal construction project under completion deadline. When the error was identified [redacted] requested new parts or credit for field modification & assurance that modified product would be fully warranted. At the time our factory Saw was not working and under repair so we could not supply new parts in time to meet need-by date. Since the parts were oversized they could be field modified to expedite completion and save unnecessary duplication cost. Field modification is routine in knocked-down product to accommodate special field conditions (this is what we do "all the time", not
send out incorrect parts). The parts were only 1/8" thick and in our experience can be cut 3 sheets at a time on a standard table saw with a 60tooth blade. This cutting is not significantly different than cutting N.1 C- with our factory saw and no edges of the dividers are exposed when assembly is complete. Foreman ,
4. acknowledged the time and labor cost significance of recommended field mods and asked [redacted] to determine how much it would cost (Labor & equipment rental expenses vary across the country) and we would cover it. His assistant estimated $500, which would more than cover the cost of tool rental and the additional time to cut the parts. Foreman agreed to cover that cost and reissued our final invoice for the balance due reflecting the $500 credit. There were several other problems smaller problems with the product but there were also problems with the staffing, communication & timeliness of the installing Subcontractor, [redacted]. Because of lack of communication with [redacted], Foreman had to resort to 00 direct contact with the General Contractor to get everything resolved. The GC was finally satisfied with the product but sufficiently concerned with the [redacted]'s lack of communication & inconsistent laborers that they issued a joint-check to [redacted] for material payment to Foreman for the 50% balance due. The a en' g adjusted balance due is $2088 ($2588 minus the credit). [redacted] is withholding final payment now 3 9 claiming additional costs equivalent to that amount while providing no supporting documentation and threatening litigation if we do not agree. Foreman has maintained throughout that the field modifications in no way compromise the integrity of the product and that it will be fully warranted to the end-user customer.
Desired Resolution: Foreman admitted it's errors and made good-faith effort to support the client at every point. We agreed to the originally requested $500 (10%) credit for costs incurred due to our errors. However we do not agree that the client is entitled to additional compensation for his trouble without supporting proof of said costs and certainly not 1/2 the value of the original contract. Foreman is prepared to issue warranty which will be in full effect, with a special clause including the field modifications. However Foreman declines to remove the standard clause that indicates the warranty becomes effective only once the product is paid for in full. When [redacted] signs and releases the final payment check from the General Contractor to Foreman we will issue the requested warranty. Foreman is happy to provide Revdex.com with copies of email threads, invoices, warranty & other documents supporting our understanding of the situation and our position on it's appropriate resolution.
[redacted] K ox Business Affairs FOREMAN Products LLC