My Service Depot (“MSD”) licenses its enterprise business software to over 1,field service companies, like [redacted] ’s [redacted] ’s first contacted MSD with an interest in MSD’s software in January After a number of discussions over several months, [redacted] ’s decided to purchase a different software solution [redacted] ’s was apparently not satisfied with this other software solution and so it again engaged MSD in discussions about purchasing MSD’s software in After a full demonstration of MSD’s software and a number of discussions, [redacted] ’s decided to purchase MSD’s software in May and executed an End-User License Agreement (the “License Agreement”)(License Agreement attached)Bromwll’s financed its purchase through a third-party software and equipment finance companyThat finance company is not affiliated with MSDMSD provided [redacted] ’s with all software and services provided for under the contractOver the course of several months, [redacted] ’s indicated it was having problems with using the software in its current business processTo assist, MSD spent considerable time without charge to develop processes to use MSD’s software while maintaining [redacted] ’s current business processesMSD has also extended an offer of further implementation assistance without chargeAlthough MSD would certainly correct any errors with the software if those errors are reported by a customer, there was never an instance of the software not working as designed or in accordance with the software’s documentation in [redacted] ’s caseAlthough [redacted] ’s first requested to return the software for a full refund on October 25, 2016, this was five months after the purchaseMoreover, [redacted] ’s financed the purchase of their software through a finance company Even if [redacted] ’s request was made closer to the purchase, MSD is unable to cancel or unwind a financing contract with a third partyMSD does not believe there is any basis for [redacted] ’s complaint to the Revdex.comHowever, MSD’s offer to continue to assist [redacted] ’s with its implementation of its software still stands
I am rejecting this response because: Although this software may work very well with other applications , we had a specific request for this software to work with our set up there was some research done on behalf of Smart Service to see if this was possible Smart Service came back and said they could implement their software to work with our system Once the software was loaded it didn't take long to see it wasn't going to work the way we intended it to be Smart Service then tried to have us alter our procedure to work with their system This was never to be the plan Every time we talked to someone there for help they were stumped on how their system could work the way we wanted In the end the software provided was no where near what we had expected and they wanted us to change the way we run our system to make this work The software created more work for us that was supposed to help streamline our operations Also we have never received any of the field software since we couldn't get past the first phase In my opinion Smart Service should have came back to us in the beginning and told us upfront that the system would not work the way we wanted We do not use any of the software provided due to the in ability to work with our system I spoke to the leasing company and they will take a payment from anyone Smart Service can payoff the lease if they choose to do the right thing
I am rejecting this response because:I do not disagree I should have read everything betterMy major complaint is and whether he admits or not is simply: quoting "if you would have mentioned this at the day mark you could have cancelled." I received this information at the day markSo did
they do something illegal no did they do the right thing noI just wanted acknowledgement that if I had not tried to make it work for me and spent the extra time and effort I wouldn't be paying $9,for something I can't use.It is my fault for not protecting myselfI am testing Smart Service ethics of right and wrong not legal or illegal
My Service Depot (“MSD”) licenses its enterprise business software to over 1,200 field service companies, like [redacted]’s. [redacted]’s first contacted MSD with an interest in MSD’s software in January 2015. After a number of discussions over several months, [redacted]’s decided to purchase a different...
software solution. [redacted]’s was apparently not satisfied with this other software solution and so it again engaged MSD in discussions about purchasing MSD’s software in 2016. After a full demonstration of MSD’s software and a number of discussions, [redacted]’s decided to purchase MSD’s software in May 2016 and executed an End-User License Agreement (the “License Agreement”). (License Agreement attached). Bromwll’s financed its purchase through a third-party software and equipment finance company. That finance company is not affiliated with MSD. MSD provided [redacted]’s with all software and services provided for under the contract. Over the course of several months, [redacted]’s indicated it was having problems with using the software in its current business process. To assist, MSD spent considerable time without charge to develop processes to use MSD’s software while maintaining [redacted]’s current business processes. MSD has also extended an offer of further implementation assistance without charge. Although MSD would certainly correct any errors with the software if those errors are reported by a customer, there was never an instance of the software not working as designed or in accordance with the software’s documentation in [redacted]’s case. Although [redacted]’s first requested to return the software for a full refund on October 25, 2016, this was five months after the purchase. Moreover, [redacted]’s financed the purchase of their software through a finance company. Even if [redacted]’s request was made closer to the purchase, MSD is unable to cancel or unwind a financing contract with a third party. MSD does not believe there is any basis for [redacted]’s complaint to the Revdex.com. However, MSD’s offer to continue to assist [redacted]’s with its implementation of its software still stands.
My Service Depot (“MSD”) licenses its enterprise business software to over 1,field service companies, like [redacted] ’s [redacted] ’s first contacted MSD with an interest in MSD’s software in January After a number of discussions over several months, [redacted] ’s decided to purchase a different software solution [redacted] ’s was apparently not satisfied with this other software solution and so it again engaged MSD in discussions about purchasing MSD’s software in After a full demonstration of MSD’s software and a number of discussions, [redacted] ’s decided to purchase MSD’s software in May and executed an End-User License Agreement (the “License Agreement”)(License Agreement attached)Bromwll’s financed its purchase through a third-party software and equipment finance companyThat finance company is not affiliated with MSDMSD provided [redacted] ’s with all software and services provided for under the contractOver the course of several months, [redacted] ’s indicated it was having problems with using the software in its current business processTo assist, MSD spent considerable time without charge to develop processes to use MSD’s software while maintaining [redacted] ’s current business processesMSD has also extended an offer of further implementation assistance without chargeAlthough MSD would certainly correct any errors with the software if those errors are reported by a customer, there was never an instance of the software not working as designed or in accordance with the software’s documentation in [redacted] ’s caseAlthough [redacted] ’s first requested to return the software for a full refund on October 25, 2016, this was five months after the purchaseMoreover, [redacted] ’s financed the purchase of their software through a finance company Even if [redacted] ’s request was made closer to the purchase, MSD is unable to cancel or unwind a financing contract with a third partyMSD does not believe there is any basis for [redacted] ’s complaint to the Revdex.comHowever, MSD’s offer to continue to assist [redacted] ’s with its implementation of its software still stands
I am rejecting this response because: Although this software may work very well with other applications , we had a specific request for this software to work with our set up there was some research done on behalf of Smart Service to see if this was possible Smart Service came back and said they could implement their software to work with our system Once the software was loaded it didn't take long to see it wasn't going to work the way we intended it to be Smart Service then tried to have us alter our procedure to work with their system This was never to be the plan Every time we talked to someone there for help they were stumped on how their system could work the way we wanted In the end the software provided was no where near what we had expected and they wanted us to change the way we run our system to make this work The software created more work for us that was supposed to help streamline our operations Also we have never received any of the field software since we couldn't get past the first phase In my opinion Smart Service should have came back to us in the beginning and told us upfront that the system would not work the way we wanted We do not use any of the software provided due to the in ability to work with our system I spoke to the leasing company and they will take a payment from anyone Smart Service can payoff the lease if they choose to do the right thing
I am rejecting this response because:I do not disagree I should have read everything betterMy major complaint is and whether he admits or not is simply: quoting "if you would have mentioned this at the day mark you could have cancelled." I received this information at the day markSo did
they do something illegal no did they do the right thing noI just wanted acknowledgement that if I had not tried to make it work for me and spent the extra time and effort I wouldn't be paying $9,for something I can't use.It is my fault for not protecting myselfI am testing Smart Service ethics of right and wrong not legal or illegal
My Service Depot (“MSD”) licenses its enterprise business software to over 1,200 field service companies, like [redacted]’s. [redacted]’s first contacted MSD with an interest in MSD’s software in January 2015. After a number of discussions over several months, [redacted]’s decided to purchase a different...
software solution. [redacted]’s was apparently not satisfied with this other software solution and so it again engaged MSD in discussions about purchasing MSD’s software in 2016. After a full demonstration of MSD’s software and a number of discussions, [redacted]’s decided to purchase MSD’s software in May 2016 and executed an End-User License Agreement (the “License Agreement”). (License Agreement attached). Bromwll’s financed its purchase through a third-party software and equipment finance company. That finance company is not affiliated with MSD. MSD provided [redacted]’s with all software and services provided for under the contract. Over the course of several months, [redacted]’s indicated it was having problems with using the software in its current business process. To assist, MSD spent considerable time without charge to develop processes to use MSD’s software while maintaining [redacted]’s current business processes. MSD has also extended an offer of further implementation assistance without charge. Although MSD would certainly correct any errors with the software if those errors are reported by a customer, there was never an instance of the software not working as designed or in accordance with the software’s documentation in [redacted]’s case. Although [redacted]’s first requested to return the software for a full refund on October 25, 2016, this was five months after the purchase. Moreover, [redacted]’s financed the purchase of their software through a finance company. Even if [redacted]’s request was made closer to the purchase, MSD is unable to cancel or unwind a financing contract with a third party. MSD does not believe there is any basis for [redacted]’s complaint to the Revdex.com. However, MSD’s offer to continue to assist [redacted]’s with its implementation of its software still stands.