Paint Solutions

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania...

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         January 08, 2018               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 12/29/2017.  As will be detailed, Davison provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services were provided to his documented satisfaction. His complaint contains a litany of false statements and mischaracterizations.  There is no basis to support his claim for a refund.     Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees before an individual even submits their idea.   It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services and fees.  Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients sometimes disregard the disclosures.    Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in December 2016. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.  The disclosures provide, among other items, a listing of the various services and related fees.  Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr. [redacted]. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 12/17/2016 at 19:44:41 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.   Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, he entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement (PD), and the Integrated Product Rendering Agreement (IPRP).  The PD agreement was completed, providing Mr. [redacted] with a compilation of US patent documents and information on products similar to his submitted idea.  He then entered the IPRP for the design of a product rendering and presentation material.  He approved the design of the product rendering and subsequently authorized the presentation of the product idea to the designated company.  He also completed two questionnaires providing positive feedback; one about the design and a second about the presentation material.  Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed (note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes) as are copies of the questionnaires.  His product idea was presented; unfortunately, that company did not license the idea.  A copy of the e-mail documenting the presentation is enclosed. An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Mr. [redacted] declined.  At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Mr. [redacted]’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided.    In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] makes a series of false statements and mischaracterizations about the services provided. Each statement will be addressed:   1.                        “Davison approached me about my idea” – this is a mischaracterization.  Davison does not initiate contact with potential clients.  It was Mr. [redacted] that submitted his idea to Davison, provided his contact information, and provided his authorization for Davison to contact him.  Further this statement is illogical - how would Davison know Mr. [redacted] had an idea for a new product.    2.                        “taken more than $15,000 from me” – this is false.  Initially, Davison has not “taken” anything from Mr. [redacted] – he paid for services which were provided with his approval, authorization and to his satisfaction.  Also, his payments have totaled $6,252.50 – less than half the amount he is claiming.   3.                        “expired my contract” – this is false.  Mr. [redacted] is referencing a 6 month time period for completion of the presentation of his product idea.  The time begins when a design has been approved.  Mr. [redacted] approved his deign on 06/14/2017 and the presentation was made on 09/06/2017.   4.                        “I had to pay for the expenses of Davison approaching a buyer” – this is false.  Davison does not charge a fee for its presentation services.  However, as detailed in the disclosures provided to Mr. [redacted], Davison does charge a fee for the creation of additional graphic material for presenting to additional potential licensees.    5.                        “I was never informed of when the buyer was contacted” – this is false and a mischaracterization.  Initially there is no “buyer” – his product idea was presented to a corporation with the goal of securing a license agreement.  Secondly, the presentation was authorized by Mr. [redacted] and made on 08/25/2017.  He was provided updates on 09/24/2017, 10/16/2017, 10/23/2017, 11/09/2017 and 12/05/2017.    6.                         “services…not legally noted on paper” - this is false.  Davison provides clear and simply written contracts that detail the scope of services to be provided.  There are no “fine print” provisions or “legalese”.    7.                        “lost its case having to pay…$200 million” – this is false.  This allegation is a complete fabrication clearly meant to inflame an uninformed reader in an attempt to bolster his baseless claim for a refund.  There has never been a judgment, settlement, or other legal proceeding of any sort, subjecting Davison to a payment of $200 million dollars.               As stated, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.  While it is unfortunate that the targeted corporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services.  The simple fact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard.  While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided.  There is no basis to warrant a refund.  However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted].  If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.   Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 11/21/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationenors are kept to a minimum. At...

the outset, Ms. [redacted] makes reference to some alleged reviewby a “close relative” of the company. It is not possible to address such a vague comment withoutknowledge of what constitutes a “close relative” of a corporation, or to what review she refers.The reality is that from the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davisonmaintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, andproviding contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. Further, Davisonsecures its clients’ approval and authorization throughout the development process.Unfortunately, communication errors do occur; after reviewing Ms. P[redacted]’s file that appears to bethe simple truth.In February, Ms. [redacted] contracted for the design and construction of a packaging sampleand presentation material for her product. Davison created an initial design and submitted thesame to her for her approval. Ms. [redacted] did not approve the proposed design and in June,provided a number of comments regarding the packaging. Davison has attempted to contact Ms.[redacted], including attempts from its Office of the President, with no avail. Securing a client’sapproval at the design stage is a critical requirement, ensuring that the packaging and presentationmaterial ultimately developed are consistent with the goals of the project. It bears noting that Ms.[redacted] states she made three attempts to contact Davison; however there is no record of those callsfrom the contact number listed.Davison remains committed to her project and welcomes the opportunity to finalize itsservices. However, a response from Ms. [redacted] is necessary. The Office of the President hasbeen asked to again attempt to contact her, and she is encouraged to contact the Office of thePresident directly. As services have begun, there is no basis for a refund.Sincerely,David D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Hello, This business knowingly engaged with sending us a product built by someone else. It has made in China imprinted on the casing of my "prototype" that was supposedly my sole idea. They claim to not know of every product in the market now, but when they are selling you their offering they guarantee their research to discover any competitions successes or failures. They cannot deny that this was someone else's product because it is printed on it that it is made by someone else. If they made it they would have a mold and hard evidence proving different. This prototype is IDENTICAL to our discovery. It is beyond obvious that it was not made by them.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 12/27/2016.Her contention that she contracted for research services and development services isincorrect. She contracted for the pre-development...

research services only. Sheacknowledges having received this service. An offer of development services was madeto her, though she declined. There is no basis for her complaint.Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshootthem so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contactand throughout the development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an openchannel of communication, disclosing, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of newproduct development, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services,fees and the development of their project. Ms. [redacted] was advised no less than three timesabout the scope of the pre-development services and the subsequent additionaldevelopment services.Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through itswebsite on 09/15/2013. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes itimpossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosuresdisplayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosuresare made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice toseek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure thenprovides a listing of the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy ofthe disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Ms. [redacted].She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read thesedisclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on09/15/2013 at 20:12:09 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted forconfidentiality purposes.Following her acknowledgment, she was provided the initial pre-developmentcontract. The title of the agreement itself indicates it is for services BEFORE thedevelopment of a product sample. Further, as she was a resident of Virginia at the time,the disclosure of all services and fees was again provided as part of the contract.Enclosed, please find a copy of this second disclosure from the contract. Finally, thecontract terms state that no development services are to be provided;Section II. B. of the contract explicitly provides;“B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format forpresentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separate contractfor a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for thetargeted Licensee.”Section 0.2. of the contract explicitly provides;“2. Davison has no obligation to construct, sell, or distribute one or more sample, prototypes,models or devices embodying the Client’s invention.”Ms. [redacted] entered the initial pre-development contract, and those services wereperformed. Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and thedisclosures provided to her, Davison offered additional services for the furtherdevelopment of her project. She has declined these additional services, which is herprerogative.There is no factual basis to support Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. As stated above, shewas fully informed, on multiple occasions, of all the services and fees. Sheacknowledged having received and read the disclosures of the services and fees. Thesedisclosures were provided BEFORE she entered any contract. The services for which shecontracted have been performed. Her decision to not pursue the further development ofher product idea does not negate the initial service which was completed. There is nobasis for a refund.SincerlyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint submitted to youroffice by Mr. [redacted] on December 16, 2016.I have personally communicated with Mr. [redacted] on numerous occasions in anattempt to resolve and complete his project. His complaint is far from accurate. Mr.[redacted] submitted hand...

drawings of a device that he wanted the company to develop.The drawings contained no dimensions. His contract for this service included thefollowing provisions concerning the process of design and the possibility of change fromhis rough concept.:The ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken intoconsideration. This subjective process often results in the DevelopmentTeam making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimessubstantial, to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submittedby Client.... (New Product Sample Agreement at ¶ 1 .A.iv.** **Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davisonthat the Idea as conceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible orthat the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner andwith the attributes as originally conceived by Client. Davison maydevelop, but is not required to develop, new technology in theperformance of this contract.... This Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or otherqualities for the design or product sample to be produced.(New Product Sample Agreement at ¶ 4.0.)Davison prepared a design for the product, with only one minor difference fromthe drawings submitted by Mr. [redacted]. Despite the contract provisions quoted above,Mr. [redacted] insisted that the design meet his specifications exactly. Davison agreed tomeet his specifications, on the condition that he provide a proposed size specification forone aspect of the design. Mr. [redacted] did not provide that specification.Instead, Mr. [redacted] changed his mind and demanded to use Davison’s originaldesign with three modifications. The company agreed. Approximately one week later,Mr. [redacted] withdrew his approval of that option and informed the company thatadditional changes would be requested. He was told that the company would suspendwork on his project because he did not know how he wanted to proceed.Mr. [redacted] then demanded that Davison start the project from the beginning. Healso suggested that he wanted to come to Davison’s facility to personally work on theproject with the company’s designers. Both of these requests were far outside of thescope of the contracted services. Mr. [redacted] was informed that if he wanted the projectstarted from the beginning, Davison would require additional payment. The companyoffered to quote the work, which Mr. [redacted] refused.Finally, Davison has reaffirmed to Mr. [redacted] that it is willing to make themodification to its design that he requested, or to complete the design to his originalspecification, on the condition that he provide the requested dimension. He has refusedboth options.In summary, Davison prepared a design that was appropriate and closelyconformed to his submission. It has offered to make reasonable changes. Mr. [redacted]has not provided information needed to complete his project when requested and hasmade unreasonable demands of additional work or a refund. The company can find nogrounds to accept his unreasonable demands.Concerning Mr. [redacted]’ claim that he has a recording of Davison’srepresentative, Mr. [redacted] has made a similar claim to Davison. Putting aside the factthat it is a felony to record someone in Pennsylvania without their consent, Mr. [redacted]has not supplied any recordings to Davison, although urged to do so. Davison’srepresentative denies making the statement.Regards,George H.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by myself Ms. [redacted] againstDAVISON Design and Development, Inc. (DAVISON) on or about 08/03/2015. In order to address eachparagraph, I have numbered the original documents via paragraphs, 1-7, my response and attachmentsare Pl-7=Paragraphs, related for clarification.As a customer with concerns I found it very difficult to get straight answers to my questions socommunication errors were kept to a minimum, (See attachments PI- A4, A9, B3, B5, B6- Dl, D2)referring further discussion on our conversation regarding the use of royalties to completed thedevelopment part of the ideas with Mike B with DAVISON stated then retracted that we had thatconversation. However it is mentioned in our first communication with the agreement of both ideas aswell as other agreements noted with the attachments indicated above, therefore making DAVISON inviolation of please note all information is in chorological order by date of events. From the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, DAVISON representative, Mike B was very misleading,deceptive and illusory, making it very difficult to maintain an open channel of communication, regardingdisclosures of services and fees upfront when securing my approval and authorization. The Pre-Development was introduced then mention of stage two, Development. However the focus by Mike Bbecame just focus on the Pre-Development and he wouldn't address questions asked regarding theDevelopment stage, mainly because I did not want to find myself getting deep into debt regarding theproject after finding out there would be additional cost attached, since Mike B refused to put ourconversation in writing for clarification which was confirmed via the DAVISON office as something theypreferred. (See attachment P1-B6, P3-A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10).Although contracts were simply written, it appeared that Mike w/DAVISON had difficulty followingprovisions of the contract, (See attachment PI- Dl, D2) because only the patent search was slightlydiscussed however none of the other parts of the development were discussed, therefore I had no inputin the final product regarding both of my ideas submitted and paid for. This was a violation of thecontract agreement. It was stated the projects where completed during my last conversation with MikeB, he stated that the project could not be completed until we spoke to have my desired input for thefinal project. Mike B stated he was not interested in presuming the ideas any further and that he wasdone he was done. 1 shared with him that I had paid for the research and development of the Pre-Development and Mike B stated that would no longer be available for the time we had agreed on due tothe time differences because he had to pick his child up from daycare. I asked if there was someone elsethat could take over, and that request was denied. It was at that point I was contacted and told by Mikethat he had some possible option for manufactures. I requested that the information be emailed to mebecause it was obvious that Mike was no longer interested in working on the projects which he hadbeen paid to do.Regarding the contact of 2008 (See attachments P2- Al, A2,) there was no contract, but another followup from DAVISON in March 2011. At that point I inquired about the information being referred to in theemail because it was just a free inquiry as stated on the website for DAVISON. The information includedin the response letter from DAVISON Attorney from American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999 I hadnever seen, there was not reason because the conversation never went that far. Had I had thatinformation I would not have submitted information on American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999when I submitted documents to Mike B earlier requesting a refund for failure to disclose theinformation. I also found it interesting that Mike B submitted (Attachment P2-A3,A4,) via email on8/3/15, after the final portfolio was mailed to me, information I should have had prior to signing thecontract agreement according to the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999 (See attachment P2-A6, A7).My contention is that I was not properly informed about the next stage of Development stage, (Seeattachments PI- A4, A9, B3, B5, B6- Dl, D2) which Mike B indicated was the new change with DAVISONto help get the idea to the Development stage after completing the Pre-Development stage. At no timewere fees for the Development stage. Mike only wanted to talk about the Pre-development stage,stating it all takes time and to be patient. I did not ignore the disclosures regarding the Pre-Development which I acknowledged having read, nor did I ignore the clear terms of the contractsregarding Pre-Development, however it appears that Mike B felt that the terms of the contract onlyapplied to me when he stated that he no longer wanted to finish the Pre-Development stage inaccordance to the contract agreement with was binding to both of us. Once I questioned (AttachmentsP3- C3, C4, and C5) after reviewing the Pre-Development Services 1. Product Related Data (AttachmentP3-A1, A2,) I shared with Mike B that I was not interesting investing any additional money, which Ishared with Mike B from the very beginning, he made it clear that he was not interested in completingthe additional steps required to create the final Portfolio, which required my input. Mike B contactedme stating he had a interested manufacture he wanted to discuss, however we had not done therequired communication needed before that stage of the Pre-Development so I was not comfortablewith having a verbal conversation with him until he wanted to schedule a time to discuss the additionalinformation required from me before submitting to a manufacture, the product was not ready topresent. After reviewing the Profile documents for both ideas I was being ask to sign information whichI was not comfortable with, I needed additional information, because at this point my ideas were beingmoved forward without my permission or input. I then notice that the final Portfolio that wascompleted before I received the Project File on each ideas which was received on 7/24/15 { P3-B1, B2,B3, then the was the final Portfolio was sent on 7/22/15 prior to the Projects File information, not theway DAVISON account of documents is being stated. I never received a hard copy in the mail aspromised by Mike B, regarding the Project Files for each ideas, just emails. The items received in themail submitted with DAVISON reply was for the final product, the Portfolio.Regarding the statement that on 08/28/2008, Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature,that she received and read the two disclosure statements is untrue, first it was a conversation wasstrictly a free consultation as indicated on your website is free. The [redacted] was never discussedand no information was provided regarding the [redacted]. Enclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing the services and fees as it was presented to me in 2008 and my follow up 5/19/11from an email from DAVISON after being contacted on 5/19/11, regarding the INTER-LOCKABLE Shoe,note the name that is used is not the real name I use for the idea and the reason being is that I haddecided that I was going to take on the financial obligation to take the idea to the Pre-Developmentstage. I therefore requested a copy be mailed to me, which I never received referring to in the email. Iat no time received the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999 nor reviewed this informationbecause once again, the idea didn't go that far in the conversation as is being referred to by DAVISONattorney. Once again, another form of deception on behalf of. (See attachments P2-A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,A6, and A7). Mike B was totally unaware of my second idea, however based on our first conversationregarding the use of royalties to cover the Development stage I eagerly shared the second idea withMike B. based on the use of royalties to complete the Development of both ideas, I not only got takenonce but twice with both ideas which Mike B later retracted.I acknowledge entering into two separate agreements of Pre-Development services based on our initialconversation, however DAVISON failed to complete both Pre-Development agreements in accordance tothe contract agreement is a violation of the contract agreement (P3 - Al, A2). Failure to allow me haveinput on the outcome of my ideas during the Pre-Development process as stated in the contract is analteration of the contract agreement, which makes the information for the final Portfolio unauthorizeddata in the completion of the final Portfolio which was sent via 2 DVDs, which is a breach of contract.This breach of contract was done even after I ask Mike B, to complete the service required to completethe process correctly. (See attachment P4-A7, A8, A9 Also as I stated it was interesting was the ProjectFile for each ideas was sent via email on 7/24, (See PI - Cl, C l part 2) the compiled information for thePortfolio was mailed on 7/22/15 (See P3 - Bl, B2, B3, B4, therefore the final Portfolio was done beforethe Portfolio making it impossible for me to have any input before the final Portfolio was completed andsent to me.The enclosures from the Postal Service made it clear that information for the Portfolio was completedprior to the Profile documents being completed, without my input in accordance to my signed contractagreement, contract breach.Subsequently, DAVISON did not offer additional services under a separate contract, because it wasnever completed in the manner specified in the contract agreement which I was not allowed to acceptor decline due to failure to communicate any further once Mike B realize that he would not be receivingany additional money from me. I requested that the Pre-Development be completed with data based on my Input, which had already paid for however he made it clear that he was not at ail concerned aboutthis resulting in a breach of contract.The Agreement for Pre-Development was understood, the second stage regarding Development wasnever fully disclosed in conjunction with the disclosures of the Pre-Development.My allegation regarding misrepresentation on DAVISON's behalf for citing on its website, regarding itsmembership with the Online Business Bureau does in fact have merit when at first sight it resembles theRevdex.com. The fact that OBB indicated no concerns and the Revdex.com provides information ofmany complaints is in fact deceptive. (See attachment P5- Al, A2, A3) Simply put, if I had theinformation from the Revdex.com I would not be dealing with this situation right now. The fact that OBB had notcomplaints, and Revdex.com had DAVISON with an "F" is truly a red flag in anyone eye. The inclusion being thatthe Revdex.com provides a much better status on your business practice, which I am nowfinding myself understanding even more with this situation. DAVISON HAS AN F ON THE Revdex.comFinally, in my complaint I requested communication be in writing, which is what I was informed on bythe business office was the desired method of communication, (See attachment PI- B6), had that beendone this current situation and Mike B would have been in compliance with DAVISON corporateprocedures.Secondly if Mike B apparent disregard for the written contract agreement regarding both ideaspresented regarding completing the Pre-Development projects in accordance to the contractagreement, which required my input for the final product, is in fact a breach of contract.Contract1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which thereis a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since thelaw of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four mostsignificant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities.The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) anacceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) avaluable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or eventwhen performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions forperformance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in whichthere is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (Associated concepts: acceptance of a contract, accessory contract, action on contract, adhesioncontract, aleatory contract, alteration of a contract, alternative contract, anticcpatory breach ofcontract, assent to a contract, assignment of a contract, bilateral contract, breach of a contract,breach of contract, cancellation of a contract, A contract requires a knowing acceptance of the terms it contains. Typically, acceptance is madeby the parties signing the contract. If acceptance is lacking, such as by a forged signature, a validcontract cannot be formed. A party may not unilaterally change the terms of a contract withoutthe acceptance of the other party to the contract.Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-forexchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance orinterference with the other party's performance. If the party does not fulfill his contractualpromise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty asmentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform thecontract, he is said to breach the contract.Nonperformance is the failure to fulfill your obligations under a contract. A breach of contract isalways a nonperformance of duty, but not every nonperformance of duty is a breach ofcontract.Finally, DAVISON failed to complete the Pre-Development Contract Agreement as stated in the contractagreement. DAVISON made unauthorized alterations to the agreement without my acceptance,therefore establishing a breach/nonperformance of contract duty make regarding both Pre-Development Contract Agreements null and void and warrants a full refund for services regarding theINTERLOCKABLE HEELS, and [redacted] for services not rendered in accordance to the original contractagreement in the amount of $1490.Investor: INTERLOCKABLE HEELS and [redacted]

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 05/27/2015. Customerconcerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a...

minimum. From the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services andfees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. Thecontracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. Unfortunately, despite its bestefforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.As will be detailed below, Davison has performed its services with Mr. [redacted]’s approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfaction. There are no grounds for a refund.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges he was not informed of existing products that weresimilar to his submitted idea. This is false. Davison is not aware, and simply can not be aware,of every idea for a new product that any person, anywhere, may conceive. It is not uncommonfor multiple people to conceive of the same or similar products independently. It is important tothe product development process, and in fact Davison believes it is necessary, that a client beaware of patents and similar products that constitute the “prior art” before deciding to furtherpursue the development of their product idea. That is the purpose behind the Pre-Developmentservices. Because of this fact, Davison requires all of our clients to undergo the initial predevelopment research so that some level of knowledge may be secured as to what is in the priorart.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison on 10 08 2013 with an idea for a product. He initiallycontracted for the Pre-Development services, which obligated Davison to compile researchinformation relevant to his product idea. These services were completed and the researchmaterial, comprising eleven (11) U.S. Patent documents and information on fourteen (14) similarproducts then on the market, was sent to Mr. [redacted]. He has acknowledged his receipt of theseitems.After having been provided with the research material, Mr. [redacted] entered into anAgreement for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentationmaterial. This Agreement contains the following disclaimer; “4.M. Davison cannot be aware of;and is not responsible for, the existence of every similar product or idea that may already be inthe global market, in development by others, or introduced by others at a later time.” Davisoncompleted the services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval, authorization and to hisdocumented satisfaction. Specifically he approved the design, completed a questionnaire aboutthe design providing positive feedback, authorized the presentation of his product idea andcompleted a second questionnaire about the presentation material again providing positivefeedback. Copies of theses documents are enclosed. (Note the actual approved design has beenredacted for confidentiality purposes.) Mr. [redacted] authorized a total of three presentations of hisproduct idea. Unfortunately, no corporation has chosen to license his product.As stated, Mr. [redacted] was provided with information regarding U.S. patents and productson the market, which were similar to his submitted idea BEFORE entering into any developmentcontract. The design, construction, and presentation of Mr. [redacted]’s product idea have beenperformed with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfaction. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered. The simple fact is; theproduct development process provides no guarantees of financial gain. Davison’s contracts anddisclosures are explicit in this regard. While this is of little comfort to a client who has expendedconsiderable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project doesnot bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided. However,in the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr.[redacted]. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department whowill coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations. Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/10/2017.  As will be detailed below, Davison has provided its services according to the terms of the contracts, with Mr. [redacted]’ approval...

and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.  Also, it bears noting that all design work on his project was completed by June 2011, more than six (6) years ago.  The significant delay between the completion of the design services and the current complaint weighs heavily against Mr. [redacted]’ contentions.  Finally, his complaint is both incomplete and inaccurate.  It is incomplete as to the extent of services provided and inaccurate as it contains numerous false assertions.  There is no basis for his complaint.               Mr. [redacted] submitted his idea to Davison through its website in May 2010.  The electronic submission system utilized by Davison m[redacted] it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or make any payment to Davison.  Among the disclosures is a detailed statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project.  He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.   Having received the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement.  The services were performed with his express written approval and authorization.  The pre-development research disclosed fifteen (15) U.S. patent documents and information on eight (8) products on the market which are similar to his idea. Davison created an initial design of the product sample which was a cost effective solution to the identified problem and which avoided potential conflict with the similar products identified in the pre-development research.  Mr. [redacted] did not approve the initial design, insisting the product sample incorporate features more consistent with his original submission, despite the potential conflict with existing patents and products.  Per his instruction, Davison completely re-designed the product sample which then met with his approval.  Based upon his approval, the product sample and presentation material were created.  Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation and completed questionnaires about the design and the presentation material in which he provided positive feedback.  The product idea was presented to a number of corporations who chose not to license the idea.  Mr. [redacted] requested his sample, and it has been provided to him.  No additional services have been engaged. Copies of his signed approval, authorization, and completed questionnaires are enclosed.  The specific authorized design has been redacted for confidentiality.   In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges he “invested” his money with Davison and that he was informed there were “none of these on the Market”.  To the extent these statements assert an evaluation of his product idea and a guarantee of a financial return, he is mistaken; through no fault of Davison.  The monies paid were for the performance of services which Davison has performed with Mr. [redacted]’ approval and authorization; and to his documented satisfaction.  The assertion of a guaranteed financial return is contrary to numerous, explicit provisions in the disclosures and contract terms.  The simple truth is; there is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed.   Davison does not provide evaluations of the commercial potential of a product idea, much less any form of guarantee that a particular product will be licensed.  Davison goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients.  Mr. [redacted] was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in;   Disclosures:  “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...”         The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided.                  Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design.  Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client. Davison has not evaluated the Product;”   New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”   “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone.  Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.  Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”   Further, his claim that he was informed that there existed no similar products is directly contradicted by the pre-development research provided to him.  To assert he was informed otherwise is simply false.   Next, Mr. [redacted] raises a concern over the form of the presentations.  At all times, Davison endeavors to present a client’s product idea in a manner that will allow the targeted corporation to fairly determine if it is interested in licensing the product idea.  Each corporation has its own policy and procedure concerning the submission of new product ideas.  In the authorization to make the presentation, (a copy of which is enclosed), it explicitly states; “I authorize Davison to ship visual information prior to shipping product sample materials.”  Davison retains possession of the product sample and ships it to a potential licensee only upon specific request from that corporation.  This action is necessitated by the fact that only one product sample is created.              Finally, Mr. [redacted] raises a concern over the quality and design of the product sample.  As set forth in the contract; “The sample is for demonstration purposes and may differ in appearance, size, materials, performance and other characteristics from the type of final licensed product built by a manufacturer in full production.”  The product sample is not intended to be of a finished product quality, but to demonstrate to a potential licensee the feasibility of addressing the identified problem with a cost-effective, easy to manufacture product. As to the design, he did not approve Davison’s initial design.  He specifically approved the re-design with full knowledge of the existing similar products.  The product that Mr. [redacted] “found” was disclosed to him as part of the pre-development research, well in advance of his approval of the design for the product sample.    In light of the disclosures, the approvals, the authorizations, and the questionnaires, there is simply no support for his complaint.  His request for a refund is not reasonable.  Purely in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison had previously offered two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted].  He has declined that offer.  Davison will continue to honor that offer should he diced to accept.      Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

I have reviewed the response made by the Davison Design & Development, Inc. regarding my complaintID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. You should have a copyof their offer presented. In fact I found the response from Mr. D[redacted] (Associate Counsel) furtherinsulting and condescending!Mr. D[redacted]’s statement’ all services were completed by January 13, 2013. How can I know forcertain when the service was terminated? No official ending date was quoted to me? If you refer tothe January 10, 2013 correspondence to me: the connotation of the written option is so ambiguous tome as usual. For example it partially states ‘ has no time frames specified on when this couldhappen.’ On[redacted] possibly assume that this is an idefinite proposition? No? So why would I assumethere is a time limit after reading this context? Their statements should have more defining clarity.Furthermore, if Mr. D[redacted] bothered to read my entire complaint, he would have noted that I did notwait 3 years to complain. I mentioned previously that I sent a letter to Mr. A[redacted], dated February 15,2015, complaining about the lack of service I received. As I stated earlier, no one bothered to contact orcommunicate back with me. Mr. A[redacted] could have sent me a courteous note to set me straightregarding the termination of services.And I apologize to Mr. D[redacted] for mistating ‘marketing’ for ‘presentation’. This seems very petty topoint out. Especially to someone who is an unsatified customer who paid almost $12,000 for services.And another thing: I did not mention anywhere in my complaint that I did not receive photos of thefinished prototype. I admit that I did. Mr. D[redacted] must have got me confused with another of the manyunsatisfied clients that sent in a complaint!And lastly: I am enclosing a copy of the Section 4.L. that I RECEIVED when I was sent the variouscontract pages after! registered. I swear to the GOOD LORD that this a copy of that article section Mr.D[redacted] made reference to. Only the first sentence matches what I received on MY copy. (And theasterick and written amount of ‘$385.00 Additional Cost’ is what! wrote down after Mr. A[redacted]surprised me and erroneously stated to me that! was previously told about an additional $385.00 costto PRESENT my idea to an additional wholesaler. ) It can clearly be seen that I was not ever told of aprecise additional fee amount for this service! Mr. A[redacted] was wrong! Also: that last sentence shownon my statement is very ambiguous again. ‘ any additional services in the future’ What preciselydoes this mean?Mr. D[redacted] is wrong. There are a lot of ambiguous, misleading, unclear and unmentioned data on thesecontract forms.And this leads to bad business practices. And I feel that I should be refunded at least partially for all thisaggravation, and frustration that I had to encounter. Even some criminals are treated better![redacted] L [redacted]PS .Please see message from the guilty, ex-Davison employee lamenting how he was forced to ‘scam’the clients while employed by Davison or else! Too bad he did not leave his name

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms.[redacted] in regard to the above referenced complaint. Her comments reference threeareas of concern; the disclosures required by the American Inventor’s Protection Act of1999 (AIPA), the disclosure of the further development services and the completion ofservices under the Pre-Development Agreements. Without an exhaustive restatement ofthe details provided in the response of 08/13/2015, the three areas will be addressed.Ms. [redacted] is correct that when she first contacted Davison in 2008, she did notengage a service contract. The initial response of 08/13/2015 does not claim she did.However, her contention that she was not provided the AIPA disclosure is false. Aspreviously stated, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea throughDavison’s website. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes itimpossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures(the AIPA disclosure and the Affirmative Disclosure) displayed in a printable and savableformat, and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 08/28/2008,Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read thetwo disclosure statements. Enclosed, please find a copy of the electronic signatureconfirmation data, documenting her acknowledgment on 08/28/2008 at 02:59:12 from IPaddress proxy-3243.bay.webtv.net. Note: the specific idea submission has been redactedfor confidentiality purposes. The prior response provided a copy of the AIPA disclosureas it would have appeared at the time.The final two areas of dispute are interconnected. Ms. [redacted] alleges she was“not properly informed about the next stage of Development...” and alleges the servicesunder the Pre-Development Agreement were not completed, specifically the ProductPlanning Sessions. She claims she did not have any input into the creation of the ProductPortfolio. The Product Portfolio is merely the format in which the pre-developmentresearch is provided to the client. There is no “input” from a client that would impact thisresearch. The Product Planning Sessions occur after the client has received the predevelopment research material, and the discussion involves the possible offer ofadditional development services. As previously stated, both the disclosures and the termsof the Pre-Development Agreement explicitly reference the offer of additionaldevelopment services under a separate contract for a separate fee. The researchmaterials were shipped to Ms. [redacted] on 07/21/2015. She terminated her relationshipwith Davison on or about 07/27/2015. Accordingly, there was no detailed discussion, oroffer, of additional development services. Her citation to the textbook definition of acontract, and of a breach of contract, ignores the application of the factual context.Within the facts, there is no breach of contract by Davison.Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered byDavison, BEFORE she entered into any contract. The services for which there existed acontract have been performed. No additional contracts have been entered and noadditional payments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices rendered.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about08/17/2015. A representative from Davison has been in contact with Mr. [redacted] todiscuss any concerns he has about his project. Please note that...

Mr. [redacted]’s concernshave been addressed and his project is moving forward.In light of the above resolution, I ask that his complaint be closed as “resolved.”Mr. [redacted] has agreed to notify your office directly of the amicable resolution to hiscomplaint.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]  I want my money at the least some of it back, this is a scam that's bin going on for a long time with Davison this is nothing new.  If this keeps going on I'll be seeing Davison In Court In Pittsburg and I'm going for a lot more and with other people that they scammed. I didn't break contract. Davison can't prove nothing they just talk a good lyi, Where is the proof you took my 2 gether chair it to the manufacture, [redacted] FURNITURE?   Davison have a nice day   you low life lying thief.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about04 10/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time of aninitial contact and throughout our process, we maintain an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing our services and fees upfront and securing our clients’approval and authorization throughout the process. Our contracts are simply written,with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with our clientsabout our services and fees. In his statement, Mr. [redacted] implies he was misled aboutthe costs associated with the development of his project. As will be detailed below, Mr.[redacted] was provided explicit, clear disclosures of the relevant fees.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’swebsite. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible fora person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in aprintable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledging thedisclosures. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received andread the two disclosure statements. It is important to note that the disclosures are madeBEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek morethan one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing our services.Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered into anagreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to his product idea. Davison completed the Pre-Development services andforwarded the compiled research to Mr. [redacted] on 07 28/2014. The research comprisedeleven (11) U.S. patent documents and information on six (6) products currently in themarket which are similar to his submitted idea.The Pre-Development Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaininga product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product ina professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services,under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is awarethat he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosuresthat Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, Davison offered additional services for the developmentof his project. Mr. [redacted] entered into a second contract, the New Product SampleAgreement, for the design and construction of a product sample. This contract provided aseven day revocation period which Mr. [redacted] did not invoke. He selected a paymentoption and has made a partial payment toward the fee. The contract provides that noservices are due until full payment has been received. Davison is willing to proceedunder the terms of the contract; however there is no basis for a refund if the contract iscancelled after expiration of the revocation period.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison has nointerest in retaining fees for services that will not be performed. Davison will agree towaive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of the monies paid toward theNew Product Sample Agreement. There is no basis to refund any monies on the PreDevelopment Agreement as these services have been performed. If Mr. [redacted] desiresto accept this offer, he need simply contact our legal department and the paper work willbe forwarded to his attention.[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 04/05/2015.Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time of an initial contact, to thepresentation of a client’s product sample, we try to maintain an open channel ofcommunication.Please note that Davison has reached out to Mr. [redacted] to discuss his concerns.Following a thorough review of his project and the development process, his concernshave been addressed. Mr. [redacted] will to continue to work with Davison in the pursuit ofhis project. Mr. [redacted] has agreed to contact your office directly concerning theresolution. A copy of his e-mail, dated April 14,2015, confirming the resolution isenclosed.Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosure

Thank you for the response from Davison, their team, and Associate Counsel Mr. David ** D[redacted]. Respectfully, Mr. [redacted] would dispute Davison's assessment of open communication. The representative, Ms. Laura C[redacted], as outlined in the initial dispute, could not be contacted or spoken to directly in regards to the product by the client. Typically in representation, there is a face to face meeting, computerized face to face chat, or at the very least, scheduled times to discuss strategies when collaborating to sell a product. Scheduled phone times with Ms. C[redacted] were not kept, and the client was given information via voicemail without being able to offer immediate input.  A customer should be able to tell that they are being represented by an agent by such communication. Evidence should be presented to prove that the work was being put in over the course of time that the client was told it may take to sell the product. The amount of time in this matter was at minimum a year according to Davison.  In addition, no names other than the target company were given. The client cannot say that a certain representative of the target company, or board was contacted with reasonable proof.   With regards to fees solicited for service, these funds are driven to be paid up front before a client even has a conceptual model or proposal. Some design companies will provide clients the opportunity to pay a said amount up front, and then the remainder after the client has seen an example of the company's work. In the case with Davison, a client is married to the company because the amount has to be paid first without show of work. Noticeably absent in the paperwork provided by Davison was the single page conceptual design that was provided to the client. Comparing Davison's fees to the physical work provided to the client should raise an alarm in cost of service versus service rendered. The client chose not to spend additional monies as mentioned in the Davison response in referring to "reactive approach".  Spending hundreds of more dollars would be unwarranted since no evidence of work was shown in the initial amount of time. In addition, Mr. [redacted] did not expect to "market the idea" as he understood it would be taken to companies directly as outlined in the initial paperwork. Ms. C[redacted] would present and potentially sell, i.e. market the product to the potential company directly. Also since Mr. [redacted]'s product was a concept, he did not expect a physical 3D model. Davison mentioned "creating a model" in their response. A model can also mean "to simulate (a process, concept, or the operation of a system), commonly with the aid of a computer". A better representation would have been computer aided "models" showing what the idea could do for the potential clients. This could have been done in a number of ways other than an a physical model. The opinion pieces provided are very telling as they show decreased satisfaction with the service provided from Davison. The Integrated Product Rendering Presentation was understood to be a rough draft of the idea. From there the Executive Briefing rating marks were less than agreeable. No ratings pieces were provided after the initial year with the client for services rendered. Mr. [redacted] is not looking to profit from or exceed the amount he originally paid to Davison. But the amount that was paid did not match the services rendered, and such, Mr. [redacted] respectfully asks for a refund. 
Regards,
[redacted]

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/02/2015.Customer concerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a...

minimum. From the time o f an initial contact and throughoutthe process, Davison maintains an open channel o f communication, disclosing its services andfees, and utilizing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is notpossible to be more upfront with their clients about the services and fees.As stated in her complaint, Ms. [redacted] entered into three separate Pre-DevelopmentAgreements. The pre-development service is for the compilation o f research material relevant tothe client’s submitted idea. Each contract provided a three day revocation period in which theservice may be cancelled and full refund provided. Ms. [redacted] did not cancel any o f thecontracts within their revocation periods. The first contract was entered on 07/08/2015. Theservice for this first contract was completed and the research material was provided to Ms.[redacted] on 08/06/2015. A copy o f the USPS delivery confirmation is enclosed. As thecontract was for a custom service, as opposed to a general item o f goods, it is not capable ofbeing returned and re-inventoried. The second and third contracts were entered on 08/05/2015and 08/07/2015 respectively. As confirmed by her complaint statement, Ms. [redacted] did notraise any concerns over the contracts until 08/31/2015, i.e. after completion of the service o f thefirst contract and well after the expiration o f the revocation periods o f the second and thirdcontracts. There is no contractual basis to warrant a refund.In light o f her complaint, Davison has stopped any additional work on the second andthird contracts. Despite having no contractual obligation, Davison has refunded Ms. [redacted]’spayments for the second and third contracts. Enclosed please find copies o f the refund receipts.Further, at her request, her project files have been closed and she has been placed on the “Do NotContact” list.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.SincerelyEnclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted], **. against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 05/15/2017.  The basis of his complaint is that his project has not been licensed, flatly claiming he was “promised” a license. ...

The reality is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. From the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing the services, fees and historical licensing data upfront and securing the client’s approval and authorization throughout the process.  The disclosures and contracts are simply written with no “fine print” provisions.  It is simply not possible to be more upfront about the fees, services and risks.  Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.              Mr. [redacted] submitted his idea to Davison through its website on 11/23/2015.  The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.  Among the disclosures is a detailed statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project.  He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 11/23/2015 at 16:27:57 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Mr. [redacted] entered into three contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, the New Product Sample Agreement, and the Inventomercial Presentation Agreement.  The services were performed with his express written approval and authorization.  He approved the design of his product sample and authorized its presentation.  Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed.  (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) He also completed two questionnaires, one about the design and one about the presentation material, in which he provided positive feedback.  A copy of those questionnaires is enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  A second company was identified and he paid for a presentation to this second company; which also declined to license the product idea.  In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges he was “promised” a license agreement.  That claim is false and is contrary to numerous, explicit provisions in the disclosures and contract terms.  The simple truth is; there is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed.   Davison does not provide evaluations of the commercial potential of a product idea, much less any form of guarantee that a particular product will be licensed.  Davison goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients.  Mr. [redacted] was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in;   Disclosures:  “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...”         The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided.                  Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design.  Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client. Davison has not evaluated the Product;”   New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”   “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone.  Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.  Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”   Inventomercial Presentation Agreement         “Davison has made no representation that the purchase of this service will materially increase the likelihood that the Product is licensed, sold or result in royalties or profits for Client.”               In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Mr. [redacted], his signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaires, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund.  However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted].  If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.      Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

My english is not the best but for my understanding i will only be refunded 80% of my last payment, which was $1000? but nothing from the first payment of $700?I would like to at least receive at least 50% for the first payent and the 80% of the last, I am still paying that money that I had to borrow, my mistake was not to ask for a friend to be my trasnlator or ask for the payperwork in spanishi am sorry for all of this, I should've done more research, loosing $900 out of the $1700 that I paid it seems very unfair, I cant even pay fro my cellphone billThank you

thanks for the free commercial ? why was I told it cost me $2500+ for the last two yrs,now it free ?It makes no mention of me or my company specifically therefore I can't use it,so 30 yrs of productdevelopment and we forget to mention the (paying) start up company? This shell company is a totaljoke and it seems to be backed by hired guns willing to defend anything or any one for a fee.Since my commercial was free,and the picture used to represent me was stew beef instead of conch saladplus a few worthless pieces of paper I think you breached your contract.Please have this company justifykeeping $8300.00 of my hard earned money,and pleas don't forget they've violated section #5 of the FTCact several times in the past.    I've also emailed several files pertaining to davisons past short comings when dealing with the payingpublic,pleas add them to my file.                                     �...⇄ respectfully,[redacted]

Mr. K[redacted] and I worked out the problems we were having , it was ID # [redacted] Davison Design and Development have worked out the problem we had and without them I wouldn't have a new invention. And its all ready now after a year of waiting , thank you for all you did.[redacted]