H2O Sports Hawaii LLC

This letter is in response to the above referenced Revdex.com Complaint submitted by Mr [redacted] regarding the above-referenced ContractInitially, I would like to point out that Craftmark is not a party to the Contract from which Mr [redacted] 's Revdex.com Complaint is basedIndeed, the Contract at issue is between [redacted] (Seller) and the [redacted] s (Buyer)Craftmark is not a contracting party, Craftmark is merely the “Builder” referenced in the Contract and has no obligation -- contractual or otherwise -- to either Mr [redacted] or Ms [redacted] Any complaint regarding the Contract should be addressed to Seller, and not CraftmarkHowever, for the reasons that follow, Mr [redacted] 's purported Claims have no basis in fact or law, and this matter should be closed without any negative findings/inferences against either Craftmark or Seller.As background, the [redacted] s entered into their Contract with Seller in July The [redacted] s applied for and received a “Loan Pre-Approval Certificate.” from [redacted] on September 24, As a result, and pursuant to the Contract, the [redacted] s signed and returned a Release of Financing Contingency Addendum (“Release”) on October 19, 2014, That Release made the Buyer's Contract obligation to timely close and tender the full purchase price at closing non-contingent, regardless of financingThe return of the executed Release before construction is required because Seller -- not Buyer -- is at greater risk should Buyer not complete Settlement on the Property for any reasonIn such an event, as this case here, Seller is then left with a built, particularized and unsold home (a.k.a“spec") in inventory for which it continues to incur substantial overhead and interest carry charges until the Property is resold on the market, and is at risk for the loss if when the Property sells for less than the purchase price that Buyer contracted to pay, which is exactly what occurred hereAs such, Seller prudently and expressly requires that Buyer waive any financial contingency before construction begins and Seller takes on that unnecessary riskSeller fully constructed the house and notified Buyer that Settlement on the Contract was scheduled for May 15, 2015, in accordance with the terms of the ContractHowever, Buyer was not prepared to settle on the Property despite their agreement in the Contract to the contraryEvidently, [redacted] had requested documentation from Buyer to show where certain deposit payments came from to satisfy the conditions of Buyer's loan commitment and requested a co-signor for the loanBuyer failed to provide either of those requested documents or a co-signor for the loan to [redacted] As such, [redacted] did not approve Buyer's loan.Seller properly placed Buyer in default of the Contract because Buyer failed to (timely or otherwise) tender closing and/or the required purchase price in clear and material breach of the ContractNonetheless, Seller -- gratuitously and without obligation -- agreed to extend the time for settlement (without penalty to Buyer) provided that Buyer was able to tender the purchase price (whether from financing or otherwise) and complete settlement on or before June 5, Seller even provided Buyer with another recommended lender (First Portfolio), but First Portfolio also did not approve the Buyer's loan application and again Buyer was not able to complete settlementAccordingly, Seller sent a letter to Buyer terminating Buyer's rights under the Contract on August 7, 2015, and retaining the deposit monies and reserving Seller's full range of default remedies in regard to Buyer's breach.Nonetheless, Seller (through its counsel) attempted to negotiate an amicable resolution with Buyer (through their counsel [redacted] * [redacted] , Esq.) that would allow, under certain conditions, Buyer to proceed to closing and Seller to apply the retained Deposit to the purchase price at any such closingHowever, Buyer still was not able to obtain the requisite purchase financing to complete settlementSince Seller has been paying interest and incurring overhead costs on the house that had been completed since May 2015, Seller was obligated to mitigate the damages caused by Buyer's breach by placing the house/Property on the open marketIn late October, Seller entered into a contract with a new Buyer, but for less than the total purchase price that the [redacted] s agreed to pay under their Contract with SellerAs a result, Seller retained the Deposit and closed the matter with respect to the [redacted] s,I would be happy to provide the letters and documents referenced in this letter should you so requireHowever, under these facts (and applicable law as we understand it), it is beyond doubt that Buyer's rights under the Contract were properly terminated as a result of Buyer's failure to timely complete settlement and Seller's retention of the Deposit in this context is above reproach in all respectsAccordingly, Craftmark and Seller respectfully request that you close your file regarding this matter without any negative findings/inferences against eitherThank you

Thank you for sending me Mr***'s responseFor the record, Mr***'s additional allegations are rejected and, again, this matter should be closed without any negative findings/inferences against either Craftmark or Seller.In Paragraph of the Contract, Mr***, as Buyer, agreed that "Buyer acknowledges that he has received and read a copy of the Release of Financing Contingency Addendum' (the "Addendum)Both Mr*** and Ms*** signed the Contract and initialed the Addendum in July Further, both signed the Addendum in October (a true and accurate copy of this Addendum can be made available to you upon request)Mr***'s claim that he had not seen the Addendum until August is directly contrary to his statement in the Contract that he reviewed it, the fact that he initialed the Addendum at the time of contract months earlier, and signed in October This Addendum was required for construction of the improvements to begin and made clear that there was no financing contingency under the Contract, as more fully explained in our initial response letter to you, Even still, Paragraph of the Contract provides that: THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT UPON BUYER OBTAINING FINANCING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, In all events, Buyer was in default of Paragraph 17(a) of the Contract because Buyer failed "on the date appointed, to tender at Settlement the amounts called for herein and accept title.” As addressed in our initial response letter, Seller properly notified Buyer that Settlement would take place in May 2015, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Contract, Prior to Settlement, we understand that *** *** required Buyer provide certain backup information to *** *** and also get a co-signor on the loan because, evidently, Buyer's financial status changed since the time *** *** issued its pre-approval letter to Buyer in September Buyer could not meet the additional obligations required of *** ***therefore could not obtain the requisite purchase financing and timely complete Settlement as required by the ContractNonetheless, Seller gave Buyer numerous opportunities -- even as recently as October - for Buyer to complete Settlement if Buyer could obtain the purchase financing, However, Buyer was again unable to do soAnd again, Buyer agreed in Paragraph of the Contract that the purchase of the Property was not contingent on Buyer's ability to obtain financing.Due to Buyer's failure to settle (which is a breach of the Contract), Seller had no choice but to place the now improved property on the market to mitigate the damages that Seller was continuing to incur for overhead and interest carry charges on a house that had been completed since May Again, as noted in our prior letter, Seller entered into a contract with a new buyer, but for less than the total purchase price that the ***s agreed to pay under their Contract with SellerSeller then properly retained the Deposit in accordance with the default provisions of the Contract and closed the matter with respect to the ***s (rather than filing a lawsuit against them to recover some of the damages Seller incurred due to their default/breach).Once again Seller and, to the extent necessary, Craftmark Homes, Inc(who is not a party to the Contract), respectfully request that you close your file regarding this matter without any negative findings/inferences against eitherThank you

I have reviewed the complaint as submittedIn my opinion Craftmark Homes has in fact been quick to respond to all of the customers complaints, however understand that according to the warranty plan given to the customer at the time of settlement not all of the issues with the home, as communicated
to us, have been warrantable itemsRegardless, going forward our customer service manager for Maryland, *** ***, will be solely responsible for the timely and satisfactory completion, under the terms of the warranty plan, of the remainder of the current service list which as of this date is roughly 75% complete*** *** will also be responsible for any future inspections and/or corrections as provided under the warranty plan

[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 Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I am not sure how long we are going to keep going and forth with craftmark homes buildersNo matter how many times they keep recycling the same response that we both signed the contract dated October The fact is simply the fact I *** *** had no knowledge of that contract's existence until craftmark terminated the contract Can you please go ahead and publish this I want the world to know of their business practices Thank you.
Regards,
*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced Revdex.com Complaint submitted by Mr*** regarding the above-referenced ContractInitially, I would like to point out that Craftmark is not a party to the Contract from which Mr***'s Revdex.com Complaint is basedIndeed, the Contract at issue is
between ** * ** (Seller) and the ***s (Buyer)Craftmark is not a contracting party, Craftmark is merely the “Builder” referenced in the Contract and has no obligation -- contractual or otherwise -- to either Mr*** or Ms***Any complaint regarding the Contract should be addressed to Seller, and not CraftmarkHowever, for the reasons that follow, Mr***'s purported Claims have no basis in fact or law, and this matter should be closed without any negative findings/inferences against either Craftmark or Seller.As background, the ***s entered into their Contract with Seller in July The ***s applied for and received a “Loan Pre-Approval Certificate.” from *** on September 24, As a result, and pursuant to the Contract, the ***s signed and returned a Release of Financing Contingency Addendum (“Release”) on October 19, 2014, That Release made the Buyer's Contract obligation to timely close and tender the full purchase price at closing non-contingent, regardless of financingThe return of the executed Release before construction is required because Seller -- not Buyer -- is at greater risk should Buyer not complete Settlement on the Property for any reasonIn such an event, as this case here, Seller is then left with a built, particularized and unsold home (a.k.a“spec") in inventory for which it continues to incur substantial overhead and interest carry charges until the Property is resold on the market, and is at risk for the loss if when the Property sells for less than the purchase price that Buyer contracted to pay, which is exactly what occurred hereAs such, Seller prudently and expressly requires that Buyer waive any financial contingency before construction begins and Seller takes on that unnecessary riskSeller fully constructed the house and notified Buyer that Settlement on the Contract was scheduled for May 15, 2015, in accordance with the terms of the ContractHowever, Buyer was not prepared to settle on the Property despite their agreement in the Contract to the contraryEvidently, *** had requested documentation from Buyer to show where certain deposit payments came from to satisfy the conditions of Buyer's loan commitment and requested a co-signor for the loanBuyer failed to provide either of those requested documents or a co-signor for the loan to ***As such, *** did not approve Buyer's loan.Seller properly placed Buyer in default of the Contract because Buyer failed to (timely or otherwise) tender closing and/or the required purchase price in clear and material breach of the ContractNonetheless, Seller -- gratuitously and without obligation -- agreed to extend the time for settlement (without penalty to Buyer) provided that Buyer was able to tender the purchase price (whether from financing or otherwise) and complete settlement on or before June 5, Seller even provided Buyer with another recommended lender (First Portfolio), but First Portfolio also did not approve the Buyer's loan application and again Buyer was not able to complete settlementAccordingly, Seller sent a letter to Buyer terminating Buyer's rights under the Contract on August 7, 2015, and retaining the deposit monies and reserving Seller's full range of default remedies in regard to Buyer's breach.Nonetheless, Seller (through its counsel) attempted to negotiate an amicable resolution with Buyer (through their counsel *** ***, Esq.) that would allow, under certain conditions, Buyer to proceed to closing and Seller to apply the retained Deposit to the purchase price at any such closingHowever, Buyer still was not able to obtain the requisite purchase financing to complete settlementSince Seller has been paying interest and incurring overhead costs on the house that had been completed since May 2015, Seller was obligated to mitigate the damages caused by Buyer's breach by placing the house/Property on the open marketIn late October, Seller entered into a contract with a new Buyer, but for less than the total purchase price that the ***s agreed to pay under their Contract with SellerAs a result, Seller retained the Deposit and closed the matter with respect to the ***s,I would be happy to provide the letters and documents referenced in this letter should you so requireHowever, under these facts (and applicable law as we understand it), it is beyond doubt that Buyer's rights under the Contract were properly terminated as a result of Buyer's failure to timely complete settlement and Seller's retention of the Deposit in this context is above reproach in all respectsAccordingly, Craftmark and Seller respectfully request that you close your file regarding this matter without any negative findings/inferences against eitherThank you

I have reviewed the complaint as submittedIn my opinion Craftmark Homes has in fact been quick to respond to all of the customers complaints, however understand that according to the warranty plan given to the customer at the time of settlement not all of the issues with the home, as communicated
to us, have been warrantable items Regardless, going forward our customer service manager for Maryland, *** ***, will be solely responsible for the timely and satisfactory completion, under the terms of the warranty plan, of the remainder of the current service list which as of this date is roughly 75% complete *** *** will also be responsible for any future inspections and/or corrections as provided under the warranty plan

Thank you for sending me Mr***'s responseFor the record, Mr***'s additional allegations are rejected and, again, this matter should be closed without any negative findings/inferences against either Craftmark or Seller.In Paragraph of the Contract, Mr***, as Buyer, agreed that "Buyer acknowledges that he has received and read a copy of the Release of Financing Contingency Addendum' (the "Addendum)Both Mr*** and Ms*** signed the Contract and initialed the Addendum in July Further, both signed the Addendum in October (a true and accurate copy of this Addendum can be made available to you upon request)Mr***'s claim that he had not seen the Addendum until August is directly contrary to his statement in the Contract that he reviewed it, the fact that he initialed the Addendum at the time of contract months earlier, and signed in October This Addendum was required for construction of the improvements to begin and made clear that there was no financing contingency under the Contract, as more fully explained in our initial response letter to you, Even still, Paragraph of the Contract provides that: THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT EXPRESSLY CONTINGENT UPON BUYER OBTAINING FINANCING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, In all events, Buyer was in default of Paragraph 17(a) of the Contract because Buyer failed "on the date appointed, to tender at Settlement the amounts called for herein and accept title.” As addressed in our initial response letter, Seller properly notified Buyer that Settlement would take place in May 2015, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Contract, Prior to Settlement, we understand that *** *** required Buyer provide certain backup information to *** *** and also get a co-signor on the loan because, evidently, Buyer's financial status changed since the time *** *** issued its pre-approval letter to Buyer in September Buyer could not meet the additional obligations required of *** ***therefore could not obtain the requisite purchase financing and timely complete Settlement as required by the ContractNonetheless, Seller gave Buyer numerous opportunities -- even as recently as October - for Buyer to complete Settlement if Buyer could obtain the purchase financing, However, Buyer was again unable to do soAnd again, Buyer agreed in Paragraph of the Contract that the purchase of the Property was not contingent on Buyer's ability to obtain financing.Due to Buyer's failure to settle (which is a breach of the Contract), Seller had no choice but to place the now improved property on the market to mitigate the damages that Seller was continuing to incur for overhead and interest carry charges on a house that had been completed since May Again, as noted in our prior letter, Seller entered into a contract with a new buyer, but for less than the total purchase price that the ***s agreed to pay under their Contract with SellerSeller then properly retained the Deposit in accordance with the default provisions of the Contract and closed the matter with respect to the ***s (rather than filing a lawsuit against them to recover some of the damages Seller incurred due to their default/breach).Once again Seller and, to the extent necessary, Craftmark Homes, Inc(who is not a party to the Contract), respectfully request that you close your file regarding this matter without any negative findings/inferences against eitherThank you

[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 Administratively Resolved]
? Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I am not sure how long we are going to keep going and forth with craftmark homes buildersNo matter how many times they keep recycling the same response that we both signed the contract dated October ? The fact is simply the fact? I ? *** *** had no knowledge of that contract's existence until craftmark terminated the contract? Can you please go ahead and publish this? I ? want the world to know of their business practices? Thank you.?
Regards,
*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced Revdex.com Complaint submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above-referenced Contract. Initially, I would like to point out that Craftmark is not a party to the Contract from which Mr. [redacted]'s Revdex.com Complaint is based. Indeed, the Contract at issue is...

between [redacted] ** (Seller) and the [redacted]s (Buyer). Craftmark is not a contracting party, Craftmark is merely the “Builder” referenced in the Contract and has no obligation -- contractual or otherwise -- to either Mr. [redacted] or Ms. [redacted]. Any complaint regarding the Contract should be addressed to Seller, and not Craftmark. However, for the reasons that follow, Mr. [redacted]'s purported Claims have no basis in fact or law, and this matter should be closed without any negative findings/inferences against either Craftmark or Seller.As background, the [redacted]s entered into their Contract with Seller in July 2014. The [redacted]s applied for and received a “Loan Pre-Approval Certificate.” from [redacted] on September 24, 2014. As a result, and pursuant to the Contract, the [redacted]s signed and returned a Release of Financing Contingency Addendum (“Release”) on October 19, 2014, That Release made the Buyer's Contract obligation to timely close and tender the full purchase price at closing non-contingent, regardless of financing. The return of the executed Release before construction is required because Seller -- not Buyer -- is at greater risk should Buyer not complete Settlement on the Property for any reason. In such an event, as this case here, Seller is then left with a built, particularized and unsold home (a.k.a. “spec") in inventory for which it continues to incur substantial overhead and interest carry charges until the Property is resold on the market, and is at risk for the loss if when the Property sells for less than the purchase price that Buyer contracted to pay, which is exactly what occurred here. As such, Seller prudently and expressly requires that Buyer waive any financial contingency before construction begins and Seller takes on that unnecessary risk. Seller fully constructed the house and notified Buyer that Settlement on the Contract was scheduled for May 15, 2015, in accordance with the terms of the Contract. However, Buyer was not prepared to settle on the Property despite their agreement in the Contract to the contrary. Evidently, [redacted] had requested documentation from Buyer to show where certain deposit payments came from to satisfy the conditions of Buyer's loan commitment and requested a co-signor for the loan. Buyer failed to provide either of those requested documents or a co-signor for the loan to [redacted]. As such, [redacted] did not approve Buyer's loan.Seller properly placed Buyer in default of the Contract because Buyer failed to (timely or otherwise) tender closing and/or the required purchase price in clear and material breach of the Contract. Nonetheless, Seller -- gratuitously and without obligation -- agreed to extend the time for settlement (without penalty to Buyer) provided that Buyer was able to tender the purchase price (whether from financing or otherwise) and complete settlement on or before June 5, 2015. Seller even provided Buyer with another recommended lender (First Portfolio), but First Portfolio also did not approve the Buyer's loan application and again Buyer was not able to complete settlement. Accordingly, Seller sent a letter to Buyer terminating Buyer's rights under the Contract on August 7, 2015, and retaining the deposit monies and reserving Seller's full range of default remedies in regard to Buyer's breach.Nonetheless, Seller (through its counsel) attempted to negotiate an amicable resolution with Buyer (through their counsel [redacted]. [redacted], Esq.) that would allow, under certain conditions, Buyer to proceed to closing and Seller to apply the retained Deposit to the purchase price at any such closing. However, Buyer still was not able to obtain the requisite purchase financing to complete settlement. Since Seller has been paying interest and incurring overhead costs on the house that had been completed since May 2015, Seller was obligated to mitigate the damages caused by Buyer's breach by placing the house/Property on the open market. In late October, Seller entered into a contract with a new Buyer, but for less than the total purchase price that the [redacted]s agreed to pay under their Contract with Seller. As a result, Seller retained the Deposit and closed the matter with respect to the [redacted]s,I would be happy to provide the letters and documents referenced in this letter should you so require. However, under these facts (and applicable law as we understand it), it is beyond doubt that Buyer's rights under the Contract were properly terminated as a result of Buyer's failure to timely complete settlement and Seller's retention of the Deposit in this context is above reproach in all respects. Accordingly, Craftmark and Seller respectfully request that you close your file regarding this matter without any negative findings/inferences against either. Thank you.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I can't even begin to tell you how many inaccuracies there are in this response by the business. Please allow me to attempt to refute point by point. From my point of view the company are obvious scam artists as even the police nformed us this happens often and he advised us to just leave and not pay the fee. We dont dispute that a slight bump happened but we dispute the sequence of events. They have a 100 for rule but then their employees pushed the jetski out form the dock within 5 to 10 feet of another jetski. In our view the staff was negligent as well as the other jetski equally at fault. The contact was so minimal I asked for proof of incident which they have repeatedly failed to provide. Notice we only have after photo of the jetski which is on the wrong side of the contact.  They are making the sequence of events up to suit their astronomical damage clain. Where is the before and after photo? Where is proof this damage didn't already exist? Every jetski in the place has these same type marks all over them. The video camera was pointed at the drivers and shows nothing nor does it prove culpability. They obviously have a nice little scam going on by causing minor damage to jetski charging astronomical damage rates then never fixing the damage as evidenced by other jetskis. When I questioned all marks on all other jetskis the employee even admitted that people paid the $500 but they obviously never fix the jetskis. I can purchase a brand new jetski for $4500 but a scratch costs $500? What rights does the consumer have? Shouldn't before and after damage agreement be gone over to point out all knicks and scratches beforehand like a rental car company has to do?Listen this whole situation is extremely shady and I will not allow us to be conned. After I informed them I would not pay damage without proof they denied bumper tube activity and even threaten to make us swim from raft back your our car instead of allowing us to take the boat taxi. We had an 8 year old with us who they threaten to make swim in deep water back from the raft to try coerce us into paying the fraudulent damage claim. Fraud has been reported for unauthorized charges to my credit card and charges will be disputed. It would make it easier if h2o would just do the right thing. If they refuse my credit card company will protect me but at least we have a forum to let potential customers of this business know about these shady activities and perhaps choose to spend money elsewhere. Sincerely,
[redacted]