Stone On Demand

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/06/24) */ What many consumers who read this fail to realize is that there is always two sides to a story and often times complaints occur due to lack of understanding or communication - this is no exception [redacted] (consumer) failed to mention many factors in her complaint - This complaint was written as the consumer was still conducting business with Stone on DemandIn fact, business progressed as for another days AFTER this was written by the consumerIt would appear that she was demanding delivery by her required due date assuming she'd get her material and this notification would not be uncovered until after delivery had arrivedThis appears very unethical - The labor was a suggested sub-contractor NOT employed by Stone on DemandOriginally, Stone on Demand was going to do the install according to original install datesGiven that the consumer changed the install date, Stone on Demand was no longer able to provide labor, rather suggested sub-contractors and furthermore recommended and arranged for the consumer to meet them prior to any work being doneAgain, this is the consumer's responsibility to do checks on sub-contractors, obtain work examples and references - The sub-contractors were going to install all the material required, prior to the need of stoneThere was absolutely NO hold up in getting the job done and the sub-contractors first day+ work was not dependent on stone rather prep workShipments followed on a regular basis which included corners - Consumer began making change orders just before the scheduled delivery dateThis set schedules behind adding extra production and the need to locate material that was not on the original agreement - In an effort to continue making a positive end result, Stone on Demand provided at no extra charge, a large sum of material and extra stone for the job totaling not less than $1, - Consumer furthermore made her own personal, handwritten changes to the final job order and expected this would be binding without first consulting with Stone on Demand - Consumer decided upon delivery of partial material that she didn't want a portion of it (after having viewed it prior to ship) and wanted to ship it back for a full refundStone on Demand agreed and it was to be shipped back no later than 6/16/15, (the agreed upon date that all final material would also be delivered) but then consumer refused to allow for pick up stating "it was not ready" and that it could not be picked up for a full week after the final delivery causing added charges on the companyGiven the material was declined, there's no reason is should have been unpackaged and not ready for pick up - Prior to final delivery that would have shipped on time based upon the agreed upon date, Stone on Demand requested consumer come inspect material so there would be no discrepancy after deliveryConsumer agreed and was to draft written payment terms based on what had been verbally discussedThe terms were based on consumers request and Stone on Demand agreed, therefore the consumer was to draft the agreementThe terms were roughly 80% of the balance paid within hours and the remainder within days - there is not another company that would ship $5,worth of material without payment or a written commitment to pay The only form of acknowledgment came in the form of nothing more than a few paragraphs in an email asking if the content was how Stone on Demand understood the terms - nor was this was signed by either partyDue to the negligence by the consumer not wanting to agree in writing to discussed payment terms, it would appear there were malicious intentionsStone on Demand has an interest to protect as wellThe consumer had been notified twice prior to days end that shipment would not leave until there was an signed agreement that would protect BOTH partiesConsumer failed to provide so shipment did not get deliveredOne last chance was given one day after the full and final shipment was to be delivered and consumer refused There are numerous other factors that highly impacted this business relationship and made it a challenging project to work onHowever, the above addresses only what MsRust had submitted in her original complaint Marc Mahowald Stone On Demand [redacted] Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2015/06/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The owner of this company admitted to being dishonest in the process of trying to provide material and serviceHe never delivered on his promises and I had to give a final deadline to receive material and he did not deliverI've had to move on to another supplier who I am very happy withThe process and been very easy with the new supplier and they deliver on what they commit to Marc from Stone on Demand has lied numerous times and continues to do so in his rebutalI have lots of evidence in writing and with witnesses that will support my claimsI would highly warn anyone attempting to do business with this individual to bewareHe's also had many law suits against him

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/24) */
What many consumers who read this fail to realize is that there is always two sides to a story and often times complaints occur due to lack of understanding or communication - this is no exception. [redacted] (consumer) failed to mention many...

factors in her complaint.
- This complaint was written as the consumer was still conducting business with Stone on Demand. In fact, business progressed as normal for another 8 days AFTER this was written by the consumer. It would appear that she was demanding delivery by her required due date assuming she'd get her material and this notification would not be uncovered until after delivery had arrived. This appears very unethical.
- The labor was a suggested sub-contractor NOT employed by Stone on Demand. Originally, Stone on Demand was going to do the install according to original install dates. Given that the consumer changed the install date, Stone on Demand was no longer able to provide labor, rather suggested sub-contractors and furthermore recommended and arranged for the consumer to meet them prior to any work being done. Again, this is the consumer's responsibility to do checks on sub-contractors, obtain work examples and references.
- The sub-contractors were going to install all the material required, prior to the need of stone. There was absolutely NO hold up in getting the job done and the sub-contractors first day+ work was not dependent on stone rather prep work. Shipments followed on a regular basis which included corners.
- Consumer began making change orders just before the scheduled delivery date. This set schedules behind adding extra production and the need to locate material that was not on the original agreement.
- In an effort to continue making a positive end result, Stone on Demand provided at no extra charge, a large sum of material and extra stone for the job totaling not less than $1,000.
- Consumer furthermore made her own personal, handwritten changes to the final job order and expected this would be binding without first consulting with Stone on Demand.
- Consumer decided upon delivery of partial material that she didn't want a portion of it (after having viewed it prior to ship) and wanted to ship it back for a full refund. Stone on Demand agreed and it was to be shipped back no later than 6/16/15, (the agreed upon date that all final material would also be delivered) but then consumer refused to allow for pick up stating "it was not ready" and that it could not be picked up for a full week after the final delivery causing added charges on the company. Given the material was declined, there's no reason is should have been unpackaged and not ready for pick up.
- Prior to final delivery that would have shipped on time based upon the agreed upon date, Stone on Demand requested consumer come inspect material so there would be no discrepancy after delivery. Consumer agreed and was to draft written payment terms based on what had been verbally discussed. The terms were based on consumers request and Stone on Demand agreed, therefore the consumer was to draft the agreement. The terms were roughly 80% of the balance paid within 24 hours and the remainder within 10 days - there is not another company that would ship $5,000 worth of material without payment or a written commitment to pay.
The only form of acknowledgment came in the form of nothing more than a few paragraphs in an email asking if the content was how Stone on Demand understood the terms - nor was this was signed by either party. Due to the negligence by the consumer not wanting to agree in writing to discussed payment terms, it would appear there were malicious intentions. Stone on Demand has an interest to protect as well. The consumer had been notified twice prior to days end that shipment would not leave until there was an signed agreement that would protect BOTH parties. Consumer failed to provide so shipment did not get delivered. One last chance was given one day after the full and final shipment was to be delivered and consumer refused.
There are numerous other factors that highly impacted this business relationship and made it a challenging project to work on. However, the above addresses only what Ms. Rust had submitted in her original complaint.
Marc Mahowald
Stone On Demand
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/06/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The owner of this company admitted to being dishonest in the process of trying to provide material and service. He never delivered on his promises and I had to give a final deadline to receive material and he did not deliver. I've had to move on to another supplier who I am very happy with. The process and been very easy with the new supplier and they deliver on what they commit to.
Marc from Stone on Demand has lied numerous times and continues to do so in his rebutal. I have lots of evidence in writing and with witnesses that will support my claims. I would highly warn anyone attempting to do business with this individual to beware. He's also had many law suits against him.