April 20, 2016Revdex.comPO Box 1000Dupont, W A 98327Ref: Revdex.com Complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])
DearRevdex.com:This letter is in response to a complaint lodged against Square One Events LLC by[redacted].I am saddened that this issue has come to this point. Square One Events has been...
inbusiness more than 20 years and this is our first customer complaint.Let me begin with some background and then address the issues in the letter from[redacted].The DeeJay/Emcee in question has worked as a contractor for Square One Events for 12years. Prior to the [redacted] event he had been scheduled by Square One Eventsas a DeeJay for a wedding which took place two weeks prior to the [redacted]Event. For your information, there is much preplanning that takes place between aDeeJay and the bride and groom prior to a wedding. In this case, the Deejay decided togo "off the grid" and not respond to repeated requests from the bride and groom toparticipate in the preplanning. Eight days before the wedding, the bride and groomdecided to terminate the DeeJay. Square One Events provided an alternate DeeJay whocame in, did the preplanning, and worked the wedding. The Bridal party was verypleased with the result. The point of this is that the DeeJay/Emcee in question wasattempting to recoup payment that he didn't get from the weeding.In their letter, [redacted] makes several allegations that were not substantiatedand are not true.1. [redacted] states that "at no time between March 16th and March 19th didMrs. M[redacted] contact him (the Emcee/Deej ay) in person or via phone to evendiscuss their dispute."Square One and the Deejay/Emcee traded several texts and emails during thisperiod. (We can produce copies of those communications). In fact, upon furtherreview we have uncovered an additional email dated March 12th wherein the
Deejay/Emcee acknowledges the fact that the payments of the fee for the[redacted] event were made.2. Square One Events sent proof of the payments to the Deejay/Emcee to [redacted]. There was no pay dispute regarding the [redacted] event. Thedispute, if you want to call it that, was over the fact that the Deejay had beenterminated and not paid for a previous event 2 weeks prior. Furthermore, SquareOne informed [redacted] that the Deejay/Emcee was going to extort the$800 and urged them to not pay it. Square One offered to replace theEmcee/Deejay with an alternate just as we had done successfully at the wedding,but [redacted] denied that request.We sincerely hope that this resolves this matter.Thank you,Pam M[redacted]President
Square One Events is responding to [redacted]'s latest rejection. Square One has repeatedly shown proof of payment. Mr. Q[redacted] extorted payment from [redacted] and the extortion payment was paid. We will not agree to settle this matter since we did not breach the agreement. Please see our responses below each paragraph. This back and forth is not resolving the situation and we think it is time for this "tennis match" to end. Thanks to the Revdex.com for its time.
1. In the response Square One Events LLC acknowledges and admits that Square One Events LLC had a payment dispute with Ken Q[redacted]. It is irrelevant over which event this unresolved payment dispute occurred. What is key is that Mr. Q[redacted] refused to serve as the emcee for the [redacted] event due to this payment dispute, and Square One Events LLC took no steps to resolve the payment dispute prior to the [redacted] event. Not that it is relevant, but Square One Events claims they have "corroboration from a Key Bank Manager in the form of two formal documents." These "formal documents" signed by a Key Bank Manager have not been provided to [redacted].
These allegations are false. There were many texts and emails between Mr. Q[redacted] andsd Square One Events prior to the event, including one text imploring him "to Do the right thing." It IS relevant that there are formal documents from Key Bank showing payments made to him, with his full account number on them.
2. As a professional event coordinator with 20 plus years experience, Square One Events LLC should know that emceeing a fundraising event and emceeing a wedding are very different. Replacing the emcee with less than 72 hours before the start of the event was not practicable or feasible. It is key for the emcee at a fundraising event to understand the flow of the event, have key talking points about the non-profit organization, clearly understanding the organization's programs and the guests attending the event that will be making large donations. [redacted] Board Members met with Mr. Q[redacted] twice, including one meeting at the venue, prior to the event. There was simply no time to meet a replacement emcee and get that replacement up to speed.
In all due respect to Ms. [redacted], he could have been replaced by a professional emcee., as we suggested. These folks are pros. I have an email stating that no one had time to meet with a new emcee, which is their problem.
We recognize that Square One Events LLC was sitting around doing nothing to help resolve this problem. But those of us at [redacted] were working day and night preparing for the event, and did not have time to meet and vet a replacement emcee.
The first sentence is pure slander, and is untrue, as explained above.
If a replacement emcee had been hired, Square One Events LLC would have had to pay this replacement emcee. Or would Square One Events LLC have expected [redacted] to fork over those funds? Wouldn't that be called extortion?
Square One would have paid the replacement emcee and sued Mr. Q[redacted] to recoup what had been paid to him.
3. Board Member [redacted] spoke with Pam M[redacted] of Square One Events LLC immediately following the conversation with Mr. Q[redacted] on March 16, 2016. Ms. [redacted] informed Mrs. M[redacted] that she planned to pay Mr. Q[redacted] if Mrs. M[redacted] and Square One Events LLC were not able to resolve the payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted] prior to [redacted] on March 19th. Mrs. M[redacted] at no time used the word "extortion" during that phone conversation.
This is incorrect. Square One told her that he had been paid in full and that if she paid him, he was extorting her.
4. Square One Events LLC breached the Standard Services Agreement dated October 12, 2015. Square One Events LLC owes [redacted] $1,000 for breach. However, [redacted] will settle this matter for $800.
It is Square One's position that Square One did not breach the agreement.
5. Square One Events LLC is very good at hurling insults and calling names. We wish they had spent as much time trying to resolve the payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted].
Again more slander. There was never a payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted] regard ing the [redacted] event, even though he tried to claim that. The dispute was about a previous event in which Mr. Q[redacted] was dismissed for non-performance.
April 20, 2016Revdex.comPO Box 1000Dupont, W A 98327Ref: Revdex.com Complaint ID: [redacted] ([redacted])
DearRevdex.com:This letter is in response to a complaint lodged against Square One Events LLC by[redacted].I am saddened that this issue has come to this point. Square One Events has been...
inbusiness more than 20 years and this is our first customer complaint.Let me begin with some background and then address the issues in the letter from[redacted].The DeeJay/Emcee in question has worked as a contractor for Square One Events for 12years. Prior to the [redacted] event he had been scheduled by Square One Eventsas a DeeJay for a wedding which took place two weeks prior to the [redacted]Event. For your information, there is much preplanning that takes place between aDeeJay and the bride and groom prior to a wedding. In this case, the Deejay decided togo "off the grid" and not respond to repeated requests from the bride and groom toparticipate in the preplanning. Eight days before the wedding, the bride and groomdecided to terminate the DeeJay. Square One Events provided an alternate DeeJay whocame in, did the preplanning, and worked the wedding. The Bridal party was verypleased with the result. The point of this is that the DeeJay/Emcee in question wasattempting to recoup payment that he didn't get from the weeding.In their letter, [redacted] makes several allegations that were not substantiatedand are not true.1. [redacted] states that "at no time between March 16th and March 19th didMrs. M[redacted] contact him (the Emcee/Deej ay) in person or via phone to evendiscuss their dispute."Square One and the Deejay/Emcee traded several texts and emails during thisperiod. (We can produce copies of those communications). In fact, upon furtherreview we have uncovered an additional email dated March 12th wherein the
Deejay/Emcee acknowledges the fact that the payments of the fee for the[redacted] event were made.2. Square One Events sent proof of the payments to the Deejay/Emcee to [redacted]. There was no pay dispute regarding the [redacted] event. Thedispute, if you want to call it that, was over the fact that the Deejay had beenterminated and not paid for a previous event 2 weeks prior. Furthermore, SquareOne informed [redacted] that the Deejay/Emcee was going to extort the$800 and urged them to not pay it. Square One offered to replace theEmcee/Deejay with an alternate just as we had done successfully at the wedding,but [redacted] denied that request.We sincerely hope that this resolves this matter.Thank you,Pam M[redacted]President
Complaint: [redacted]we are going to pursue legal action for breach of contract.
Sincerely,[redacted]
Square One Events is responding to [redacted]'s latest rejection. Square One has repeatedly shown proof of payment. Mr. Q[redacted] extorted payment from [redacted] and the extortion payment was paid. We will not agree to settle this matter since we did not breach the agreement. Please see our responses below each paragraph. This back and forth is not resolving the situation and we think it is time for this "tennis match" to end. Thanks to the Revdex.com for its time.
1. In the response Square One Events LLC acknowledges and admits that Square One Events LLC had a payment dispute with Ken Q[redacted]. It is irrelevant over which event this unresolved payment dispute occurred. What is key is that Mr. Q[redacted] refused to serve as the emcee for the [redacted] event due to this payment dispute, and Square One Events LLC took no steps to resolve the payment dispute prior to the [redacted] event. Not that it is relevant, but Square One Events claims they have "corroboration from a Key Bank Manager in the form of two formal documents." These "formal documents" signed by a Key Bank Manager have not been provided to [redacted].
These allegations are false. There were many texts and emails between Mr. Q[redacted] andsd Square One Events prior to the event, including one text imploring him "to Do the right thing." It IS relevant that there are formal documents from Key Bank showing payments made to him, with his full account number on them.
2. As a professional event coordinator with 20 plus years experience, Square One Events LLC should know that emceeing a fundraising event and emceeing a wedding are very different. Replacing the emcee with less than 72 hours before the start of the event was not practicable or feasible. It is key for the emcee at a fundraising event to understand the flow of the event, have key talking points about the non-profit organization, clearly understanding the organization's programs and the guests attending the event that will be making large donations. [redacted] Board Members met with Mr. Q[redacted] twice, including one meeting at the venue, prior to the event. There was simply no time to meet a replacement emcee and get that replacement up to speed.
In all due respect to Ms. [redacted], he could have been replaced by a professional emcee., as we suggested. These folks are pros. I have an email stating that no one had time to meet with a new emcee, which is their problem.
We recognize that Square One Events LLC was sitting around doing nothing to help resolve this problem. But those of us at [redacted] were working day and night preparing for the event, and did not have time to meet and vet a replacement emcee.
The first sentence is pure slander, and is untrue, as explained above.
If a replacement emcee had been hired, Square One Events LLC would have had to pay this replacement emcee. Or would Square One Events LLC have expected [redacted] to fork over those funds? Wouldn't that be called extortion?
Square One would have paid the replacement emcee and sued Mr. Q[redacted] to recoup what had been paid to him.
3. Board Member [redacted] spoke with Pam M[redacted] of Square One Events LLC immediately following the conversation with Mr. Q[redacted] on March 16, 2016. Ms. [redacted] informed Mrs. M[redacted] that she planned to pay Mr. Q[redacted] if Mrs. M[redacted] and Square One Events LLC were not able to resolve the payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted] prior to [redacted] on March 19th. Mrs. M[redacted] at no time used the word "extortion" during that phone conversation.
This is incorrect. Square One told her that he had been paid in full and that if she paid him, he was extorting her.
4. Square One Events LLC breached the Standard Services Agreement dated October 12, 2015. Square One Events LLC owes [redacted] $1,000 for breach. However, [redacted] will settle this matter for $800.
It is Square One's position that Square One did not breach the agreement.
5. Square One Events LLC is very good at hurling insults and calling names. We wish they had spent as much time trying to resolve the payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted].
Again more slander. There was never a payment dispute with Mr. Q[redacted] regard ing the [redacted] event, even though he tried to claim that. The dispute was about a previous event in which Mr. Q[redacted] was dismissed for non-performance.