Good Afternoon, At the time the client placed their order, the Design Center did not have the Grady Cane Chair represented. Despite the lack of representation of this item the order was placed with agreement to the terms and conditions of sale. The order was placed with an estimated date of delivery as 4/8/17; chairs were delivered on 3/28/17 which is prior to the original estimated date of delivery. Tucson design center accepted the chairs back on 4/23/2017, close to one month after delivery was accepted. The design center manager accepted the return with a 15% restock fee, an accommodation and departure from our normal forfeited 30% deposit amount for custom orders. Not finding satisfaction with the outcome, Mr. [redacted] reached out to our corporate office requesting to waive the restock fee. Our final offer, reducing the restock fee to 7.5%, was not accepted and Mr. [redacted] suggested their next course of action was to seek legal recourse. The chairs were returned directly to our Tucson location and have remained there since that date. We have reviewed and found these chairs to be within our standards and product specifications. Had any defects been found and the chairs not met our standards, replacement would be provided under the warranty as expressed in the terms and conditions of sale. We have processed a refund in the amount of $431.40 to execute our final offer of a 7.5% restock fee, reduced from 15%, as originally advised. As an additional accommodation, we can offer to apply the restock fee, towards a future purchase made within the next 60 days. There was an agreement to the terms and conditions of sale that govern this transaction – the product is found to be within Ethan Allen standards. As requested by Mr. [redacted], our legal department may be reached at our main number [redacted]. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and expand on our position.
Ms M[redacted] must have me confused with another customer with a complaint. Only one return offer was made. it was not accepted. The issue here not not a cancellation. It is a misrepresentation of the floor model. The model on the floor was not representative of what we received. There is no possible way a consumer can inspected the product until it arrives at their residence, which took over a month to deliver. When the decision to return the misrepresented chairs, emails were exchanged between the salesperson, manager and us. The return policy between the staff shows much confusion. Ms. M[redacted] may want to view those emails. Ms. M[redacted] states that the stain and specifications where identical to the store model. I'm sure that Ms. M[redacted] did not see the product that she returned nor the floor model. I asked to take photos of the returned merchandise. She stated that it was in a warehouse "somewhere". Therefore, a side by side comparison can not be made. Ms. M[redacted] is welcome to contact me once more. At this time I will request her to provide me with the phone number to Ethan Allen's legal department so that I may pursue litigation if necessary.
Good Afternoon, At the time the client placed their order, the Design Center did not have the Grady Cane Chair represented. Despite the lack of representation of this item the order was placed with agreement to the terms and conditions of sale. The order was placed with an estimated date of delivery as 4/8/17; chairs were delivered on 3/28/17 which is prior to the original estimated date of delivery. Tucson design center accepted the chairs back on 4/23/2017, close to one month after delivery was accepted. The design center manager accepted the return with a 15% restock fee, an accommodation and departure from our normal forfeited 30% deposit amount for custom orders. Not finding satisfaction with the outcome, Mr. [redacted] reached out to our corporate office requesting to waive the restock fee. Our final offer, reducing the restock fee to 7.5%, was not accepted and Mr. [redacted] suggested their next course of action was to seek legal recourse. The chairs were returned directly to our Tucson location and have remained there since that date. We have reviewed and found these chairs to be within our standards and product specifications. Had any defects been found and the chairs not met our standards, replacement would be provided under the warranty as expressed in the terms and conditions of sale. We have processed a refund in the amount of $431.40 to execute our final offer of a 7.5% restock fee, reduced from 15%, as originally advised. As an additional accommodation, we can offer to apply the restock fee, towards a future purchase made within the next 60 days. There was an agreement to the terms and conditions of sale that govern this transaction – the product is found to be within Ethan Allen standards. As requested by Mr. [redacted], our legal department may be reached at our main number [redacted]. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and expand on our position.
Ms M[redacted] must have me confused with another customer with a complaint. Only one return offer was made. it was not accepted. The issue here not not a cancellation. It is a misrepresentation of the floor model. The model on the floor was not representative of what we received. There is no possible way a consumer can inspected the product until it arrives at their residence, which took over a month to deliver. When the decision to return the misrepresented chairs, emails were exchanged between the salesperson, manager and us. The return policy between the staff shows much confusion. Ms. M[redacted] may want to view those emails. Ms. M[redacted] states that the stain and specifications where identical to the store model. I'm sure that Ms. M[redacted] did not see the product that she returned nor the floor model. I asked to take photos of the returned merchandise. She stated that it was in a warehouse "somewhere". Therefore, a side by side comparison can not be made. Ms. M[redacted] is welcome to contact me once more. At this time I will request her to provide me with the phone number to Ethan Allen's legal department so that I may pursue litigation if necessary.