James Imaging Systems, Inc.

In February we were sent an email from James Imaging's sales rep. Scott [redacted] stating that our current lease was coming due in April and included a few options to provide a plotter for our future use. AT this time I was asked to take the lead, working with Scott, and look into a future replacement for the engineering dept.'s plotter. One of the options presented was to get a more current machine, at a price point that was similar to our current lease. The other option proposed was to extend the lease of our current plotter at a lower rate. For reference, the lease that we had was set up by an IT person who is no longer with our company, and our IT needs are handled off site currently at one of our other facilities. I did not have the contract to review and relied on James Imaging to present appropriate options.
Internally we also decided to look at other businesses/plotters to see if one would be a better fit for our department. I did so, and found a better solution that what James Imaging was presenting.
After purchasing a new machine we informed James Imaging that we were ready for them to pick up their machine. This is when I was informed that the machine was actually owned by Rotork now (in June), as the original lease was a Dollar Buyout Lease. This was conflicting information to what we had originally been told, as the Sales Rep tried to extend the lease with us on that very machine, or have us do a buy out on the machine at a price of $2977.63. Had we understood this option our path forward would have looked different. There is some blame on our part for not having the actual lease in front of us. Relying on James Imaging to present an accurate picture was our mistake. We made a lot of decisions based on the information that was given and when we pushed back, we were told by James imaging that they were not the actual leasing company, and there was nothing they could do. We did not accept their position and indicated that we did no business with the leasing company and that all of past and current correspondence was with James Imaging, including the most recent quotes.
This mis-representation of the situation, rather intentional or not, cost the company close to $3000. The misrepresentation was past and we asked James Imaging to correct the issue. After numerous attempts to contact and get responses from the sales team and sales manager, the owner, Tom [redacted], was contacted. His offer was to purchase the new equipment from us at the invoiced price. Our response was that we wanted to be clear of James Imaging and that we would absorb the cost. Trust had been broken. The last correspondence yielded the action on Tom’s behalf to get a fair market price for the plotter (which interestingly was not the buyout price they had originally quoted). Weeks have passed with numerous attempts to contact [redacted]. There has been no success.
It is my hope that you are able to avoid such issues with James Imaging.