Grilled Addiction

We were very disappointed in our recent business to business interaction with Wandering Donkey, LLC, Food Truck ServiceIn good faith we negotiated a contract and were clear on our desire to stay within our pre-determined budgetThere were many emails exchanged that document our intent to stay within our budget
We contracted with the Wandering Donkey to provide meals to the attendees at our annual Gala event held on March 4, This was the Arizona Eye Institute & Cosmetic Laser Center's 27th Anniversary eventIt was made clear to the Wandering Donkey Food Truck Service the attendees were receiving the meals at no chargeOnce we arrived at the contracted amount we paid the required 50% depositOur vendors who provide goods and services to our business elected to donate monies that were paid directly to the Wandering DonkeyThe Wandering Donkey informed us there would be a credit due to vendor overpayment
In the selection process for the meals, we were offered chu

Complaint #***Arizona Eye Institute / Wandering Donkey 3/4/EventWe too were very disappointed with the results of the day As Arizona Eye Institute representatives and their guests told us how great the food was and how happy they were with our service We
negotiated a contract with Dr*** (Az Eye Institute) through his employee *** *** for an event on March 4, After some negotiations and changes a final and revised contract was agreed upon and signed(see attached document) We did receive an email from *** (Feb2016) stating they did not want the Churros due to the mess it might cause on the carpets with the dipping sauce Instead of sending emails back and forth, I called her to let her know that we could leave out the dipping sauces, therefore, causing no mess She said "ok" I had the impression we would move on with the Churros and we did not get a request to revise the contract The day of the event we served their guests and employees (including ***e & ***) with meals and Churros, per the contract At the end of the event, *** went to find ***e and/or *** to let them know we were done and would be leaving He could not find either person, so he left the propertyGuests (approximately per ***e) and employees (approximately 30) all had meals and Churros At the end of the day they decided they are going to say something about how they didn't want Churros? After eating Churros themselves and watching all their guests with Churros, they then want to dispute the Churros? We had no intention of giving away free Churros. On approximately 3/7/or 3/8/16, ***e *** called to discuss the total count of guests and the Churros issue After some discussion, I came to an agreement, but after discussing the situation with *** we decided to stick with our original agreement We did exactly what our contract stated plus much more (accounting & money collection from their vendor reps etc- see below email copy sent to ***e *** on 3/8/16) Dr*** negotiated meals for his guests, we do not typically refund any amount for guests that do not show, but we know how particular he is about costs and we want to win his business back, so we accommodate him and gave him credit for guests that did not show

Response to Rebuttal for Revdex.com Complaint No. [redacted] April 14, 2016 First, I would like to make it clear that we do not accept the rebuttal from the Wandering Donkey as a final statement on this complaint. Also, it is in no way and acknowledgment on our part that by cashing the check we received from Wandering Donkey that we accept that the complaint is resolved. There was no supporting documentation, either separately or on the check itself, indicating that cashing the check would resolve the outstanding issue and ba[redacted]. In [redacted] rebuttal, she stated that her decision to provide churros as part of the menu was based on a phone conversation with our marketing director, [redacted], who allegedly said "ok" to adding the churros with the reduction of the price based on the elimination of the dipping sauces. Our marketing director has no record of this conversation and states firmly that she did not say that it was "ok" to add the churros to the menu. In fact, when [redacted] saw that the churros were being distributed, she immediately addressed this with [redacted], the owner, stating they were not supposed to be part of the menu. It was also stated that the employees as a part of their supposed free meal consumed churros and that is not an accurate statement. It was also said in the rebuttal that [redacted] made a concerted effort to locate the marketing director and the administrator after the event, and that is also a very inaccurate statement. The administrator and marketing director were present and available throughout the entire event, and would have gladly met with [redacted]. There was not an effort made on [redacted]'s part to make sure that either of those people were found and the final tally reported. The obvious solution for [redacted] would have been to simply call [redacted]'s cell phone. In the rebuttal from [redacted], she acknowledges that there was indeed a conversation with [redacted], our administrator, where middle ground regarding a final accounting involving a reduced refund back to the Arizona Eye Institute was established and agreed upon. In the spirit of that acknowledgment, both parties achieved a "win-win" solution. It was a solution that served to cover the cost of the churros without dipping sauce, and allowed for a reduced refund of $360 to be returned to Arizona Eye Institute. If this option would have been executed, or still could be executed, as it was intended and accepted in good faith by both parties, there would not have been a business to business complaint filed by Arizona Eye Institute. Unfortunately, that was not the case and Arizona Eye Institute considers this complaint to be active and unresolved. Respectfully Submitted, [redacted] Administrator Arizona Eye Institute & Cosmetic Laser Center

May 2, 2016: Complaint ID #  [redacted]It’s apparent by their rebuttal to our response, Arizona Eye Institute (AEI) has no boundaries as to how low they will go to try and extract money from honest small business people for specifically bargained upon services and product being fully rendered to them. There is certainly ‘NO’ dispute 300 Churros were served to the guests of AEI at an already discounted rate. They know very well their employee [redacted] had agreed to keep the Churros on the menu once her concerns of messiness had been satisfactorily addressed. To demand a deeper discount by leveraging the Revdex.com after the fact is not an acceptable business practice in our mind. In fact, we consider it to be shady and will not veer from the terms of the contract as was executed in full. The Churros were a revision and became a defined part of the finalized/signed contract. Therefore, they remained a part of the contract through the completion of our service to their guests, as no other revision was requested to the contrary. Based upon every other change that was made to the food/service in advance, Dr. [redacted] through [redacted], required a ‘change’ to the contract be executed. However, when it came to the deletion of Churros [redacted] did not request, let alone require a new contract or addendum to reflect this. Why not this time???  Furthermore, [redacted] didn’t bring this to our attention until the end of service after ‘ALL’ the Churros had been disbursed. Regardless of what they claim many of their employees did eat them.  How convenient to wait until some 300 were passed out starting with their first guest to the last! It is not even realistic to believe the marketing director nor did the administrator not notice hundreds of Churros were being served throughout, right up to the end of the day. Does AEI, or will anyone, honestly think we would have served Churros for ‘free’ if we were not contractually bound monetarily to do so??? Any reasonable business person will see the true intent of AEI here!In respect to their statement “[redacted] did not make a concerted effort to locate the marketing director and the administrator after the event” is not relevant. The contracted service had been fully completed in the allotted time as agreed. Nevertheless, he did try and locate them amongst the 300+ people present with no avail. For them to claim this shows their ability to try and falsely skew the facts against us… simply because they say so! How could they know if [redacted] did or didn’t seek them out? Furthermore, they knew we had served all their guests on time and we were onsite an additional 45-minutes from that point doing clean-up. If it was imperative for them to speak with [redacted] before his departure they should’ve made the effort themselves to see him. They knew exactly where to find him. The lack of internal coordination and timely communication regarding the Churros on the part of AEI is not the fault of the Wandering Donkey… period! We will not negotiate based upon their bad faith to be reimbursed at even deeper discount for service and product rendered per the “Signed Contract”. In business the contract ‘ALWAYS’ takes precedence and if changes are to be made, the party seeking the change must do their own diligence that the instrument reflects the change. Everything else in their argument is not relevant without an executed change to the original contract based upon this precedence they themselves set with all other changes negotiated in advance with the Wandering Donkey. Shame on Arizona Eye Institute for this unethical practice. We will be certain to share this experience with our fellow food truckers who know us only as fair and ethical business people within our community. We strongly encourage AEI to withdraw this frivolous complaint as it will only serve to tarnish their reputation and ability to contract other truckers in the future.

Response to Rebuttal for Revdex.com Complaint No. [redacted] April 14, 2016 First, I would like to make it clear that we do not accept the rebuttal from the Wandering Donkey as a final statement on this complaint. Also, it is in no way and acknowledgment on our part that by cashing the check we received from Wandering Donkey that we accept that the complaint is resolved. There was no supporting documentation, either separately or on the check itself, indicating that cashing the check would resolve the outstanding issue and ba[redacted]. In [redacted] rebuttal, she stated that her decision to provide churros as part of the menu was based on a phone conversation with our marketing director, [redacted], who allegedly said "ok" to adding the churros with the reduction of the price based on the elimination of the dipping sauces. Our marketing director has no record of this conversation and states firmly that she did not say that it was "ok" to add the churros to the menu. In fact, when [redacted] saw that the churros were being distributed, she immediately addressed this with [redacted], the owner, stating they were not supposed to be part of the menu. It was also stated that the employees as a part of their supposed free meal consumed churros and that is not an accurate statement. It was also said in the rebuttal that [redacted] made a concerted effort to locate the marketing director and the administrator after the event, and that is also a very inaccurate statement. The administrator and marketing director were present and available throughout the entire event, and would have gladly met with [redacted]. There was not an effort made on [redacted]'s part to make sure that either of those people were found and the final tally reported. The obvious solution for [redacted] would have been to simply call [redacted]'s cell phone. In the rebuttal from [redacted], she acknowledges that there was indeed a conversation with [redacted], our administrator, where middle ground regarding a final accounting involving a reduced refund back to the Arizona Eye Institute was established and agreed upon. In the spirit of that acknowledgment, both parties achieved a "win-win" solution. It was a solution that served to cover the cost of the churros without dipping sauce, and allowed for a reduced refund of $360 to be returned to Arizona Eye Institute. If this option would have been executed, or still could be executed, as it was intended and accepted in good faith by both parties, there would not have been a business to business complaint filed by Arizona Eye Institute. Unfortunately, that was not the case and Arizona Eye Institute considers this complaint to be active and unresolved. Respectfully Submitted, [redacted] Administrator Arizona Eye Institute & Cosmetic Laser Center

May 2, 2016: Complaint ID #  [redacted]It’s apparent by their rebuttal to our response, Arizona Eye Institute (AEI) has no boundaries as to how low they will go to try and extract money from honest small business people for specifically bargained upon services and product being fully rendered to them. There is certainly ‘NO’ dispute 300 Churros were served to the guests of AEI at an already discounted rate. They know very well their employee [redacted] had agreed to keep the Churros on the menu once her concerns of messiness had been satisfactorily addressed. To demand a deeper discount by leveraging the Revdex.com after the fact is not an acceptable business practice in our mind. In fact, we consider it to be shady and will not veer from the terms of the contract as was executed in full. The Churros were a revision and became a defined part of the finalized/signed contract. Therefore, they remained a part of the contract through the completion of our service to their guests, as no other revision was requested to the contrary. Based upon every other change that was made to the food/service in advance, Dr. [redacted] through [redacted], required a ‘change’ to the contract be executed. However, when it came to the deletion of Churros [redacted] did not request, let alone require a new contract or addendum to reflect this. Why not this time???  Furthermore, [redacted] didn’t bring this to our attention until the end of service after ‘ALL’ the Churros had been disbursed. Regardless of what they claim many of their employees did eat them.  How convenient to wait until some 300 were passed out starting with their first guest to the last! It is not even realistic to believe the marketing director nor did the administrator not notice hundreds of Churros were being served throughout, right up to the end of the day. Does AEI, or will anyone, honestly think we would have served Churros for ‘free’ if we were not contractually bound monetarily to do so??? Any reasonable business person will see the true intent of AEI here!In respect to their statement “[redacted] did not make a concerted effort to locate the marketing director and the administrator after the event” is not relevant. The contracted service had been fully completed in the allotted time as agreed. Nevertheless, he did try and locate them amongst the 300+ people present with no avail. For them to claim this shows their ability to try and falsely skew the facts against us… simply because they say so! How could they know if [redacted] did or didn’t seek them out? Furthermore, they knew we had served all their guests on time and we were onsite an additional 45-minutes from that point doing clean-up. If it was imperative for them to speak with [redacted] before his departure they should’ve made the effort themselves to see him. They knew exactly where to find him. The lack of internal coordination and timely communication regarding the Churros on the part of AEI is not the fault of the Wandering Donkey… period! We will not negotiate based upon their bad faith to be reimbursed at even deeper discount for service and product rendered per the “Signed Contract”. In business the contract ‘ALWAYS’ takes precedence and if changes are to be made, the party seeking the change must do their own diligence that the instrument reflects the change. Everything else in their argument is not relevant without an executed change to the original contract based upon this precedence they themselves set with all other changes negotiated in advance with the Wandering Donkey. Shame on Arizona Eye Institute for this unethical practice. We will be certain to share this experience with our fellow food truckers who know us only as fair and ethical business people within our community. We strongly encourage AEI to withdraw this frivolous complaint as it will only serve to tarnish their reputation and ability to contract other truckers in the future.

Complaint #[redacted]Arizona Eye Institute / Wandering Donkey  3/4/16 EventWe too were very disappointed with the results of the day.  As Arizona Eye Institute representatives and their guests told us how great the food was and how happy they were with our service.  We...

negotiated a contract with Dr. [redacted] (Az Eye Institute) through his employee [redacted] for an event on March 4, 2016.  After some negotiations and changes a final and revised contract was agreed upon and signed. (see attached document).  We did receive an email from [redacted] (Feb. 2016) stating they did not want the Churros due to the mess it might cause on the carpets with the dipping sauce.  Instead of sending emails back and forth, I called her to let her know that we could leave out the dipping sauces, therefore, causing no mess.  She said "ok".  I had the impression we would move on with the Churros and we did not get a request to revise the contract.  The day of the event we served their guests and employees (including [redacted]e & [redacted]) with meals and Churros, per the contract.  At the end of the event, [redacted] went to find [redacted]e and/or [redacted] to let them know we were done and would be leaving.  He could not find either person, so he left the property. Guests (approximately 348 per [redacted]e) and employees (approximately 30) all had meals and Churros.  At the end of the day they decided they are going to say something about how they didn't want Churros?  After eating Churros themselves and watching all their guests with Churros, they then want to dispute the Churros?  We had no intention of giving away free Churros. On approximately 3/7/16 or 3/8/16, [redacted] called to discuss the total count of guests and the Churros issue.  After some discussion, I came to an agreement, but after discussing the situation with [redacted] we decided to stick with our original agreement.  We did exactly what our contract stated plus much more (accounting & money collection from their vendor reps etc... - see below email copy sent to [redacted] on 3/8/16) Dr. [redacted] negotiated 350 meals for his guests, we do not typically refund any amount for guests that do not show, but we know how particular he is about costs and we want to win his business back, so we accommodate him and gave him credit for 2 guests that did not show.