Solta Medical, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 15, 2015/11/04) */
Response from Solta Medical, Inc
In October 2012, the complainant, a physician/surgeon, signed a legally binding contract for the purchase of an ultrasonic surgical system for his practiceThe system was shipped to the doctor in December
and the purchase price, shipping and sales tax was invoiced to and paid by a lender to the doctor
Subsequently, the doctor contacted a company sales representative telling of family and financial hardship occasioned by family members being involved in the conflict in Syria, and asking that the company take back the system and refund the money paidAfter the doctor discussed the matter with two company representatives, the request was escalated to the company's Chief Executive Officer
The company's Chief Executive Officer discussed the matter with the doctor and, out of sympathy for his stated situation, offered to take back the system and refund the price less shipping charges and a fee of 20% of the purchase price, to which the doctor orally agreedThe amount due was paid by the company to the doctor's lender, as required by law
The doctor subsequently made numerous claims against the company for reimbursement of the amount he previously agreed that the company would retainOver a period of time, he engaged two different law firms to pursue his claim
The company took legal advice in the matter, which was that the company and the doctor had entered into a valid and binding contract, and the company's act in agreeing to accept the return of the system and to refund to the doctor 80% of the price paid was in no way legally required, but was a voluntary act of generosity by the companyBoth law firms retained by the doctor, after making claims on his behalf and receiving the company's response, did not pursue the matter further
It appears that the doctor now is pursuing his claim through public avenues, such as this Revdex.com complaintThe company believes it has acted with both integrity and generosity in this matter, and continues to believe that Dr*** has no legitimate claim to the amount he continues to demand

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 15, 2015/11/04) */
Response from Solta Medical, Inc
In October 2012, the complainant, a physician/surgeon, signed a legally binding contract for the purchase of an ultrasonic surgical system for his practiceThe system was shipped to the doctor in December
and the purchase price, shipping and sales tax was invoiced to and paid by a lender to the doctor
Subsequently, the doctor contacted a company sales representative telling of family and financial hardship occasioned by family members being involved in the conflict in Syria, and asking that the company take back the system and refund the money paidAfter the doctor discussed the matter with two company representatives, the request was escalated to the company's Chief Executive Officer
The company's Chief Executive Officer discussed the matter with the doctor and, out of sympathy for his stated situation, offered to take back the system and refund the price less shipping charges and a fee of 20% of the purchase price, to which the doctor orally agreedThe amount due was paid by the company to the doctor's lender, as required by law
The doctor subsequently made numerous claims against the company for reimbursement of the amount he previously agreed that the company would retainOver a period of time, he engaged two different law firms to pursue his claim
The company took legal advice in the matter, which was that the company and the doctor had entered into a valid and binding contract, and the company's act in agreeing to accept the return of the system and to refund to the doctor 80% of the price paid was in no way legally required, but was a voluntary act of generosity by the companyBoth law firms retained by the doctor, after making claims on his behalf and receiving the company's response, did not pursue the matter further
It appears that the doctor now is pursuing his claim through public avenues, such as this Revdex.com complaintThe company believes it has acted with both integrity and generosity in this matter, and continues to believe that Dr*** has no legitimate claim to the amount he continues to demand