Business ProfileforCharlies Custom Creations

COMPLAINT --------------------I. INTRODUCTION This document represents a complaint against *******'s Custom Creations, a classic vehicle restoration company, located at ********************************************, hereafter denoted as ************** filed by **********************, at **********************************************, hereafter denoted as the Complainant. The business description of the Company, the business relationship between the Company and the Complainant, the history of the relationship, as well as. the nature, history, and details of the dispute, shall be described.A. Business description of the Company Among other things, the company will take an existing, classic vehicle and restore it, using new components, except the vehicle body. The complainant had a classic, first- generation Camaro, for which he wanted, the original components replaced, with new aftermarket components, with the same functionality.B. Business relationship between the Company and the *********************** was to receive the Complainant's first generation Camaro, which had been stored for over 30 years, and build an all new automobile, except for the original body. Body work would be performed as necessary, by a subcontractor, to restore the body to an as-new condition.C. History of business relationship.The Complainant did not document the exact date of the initial relationship, between himself and the Company, but, to the best of his recollection, it was the early part of September 2023. The Complainant expressed to the Company, the desire to replace the major components of his classic car with new aftermarket parts. Examples include the carburator, brakes, distributor, etc... and to ****** the valves so that the restored car would operate on unleaded gasoline. *********** responded, that their procedure was to utilize all new, modern parts except for the body of the classic car. These parts would be ordered from aftermarket companies, and would be stored at the Company's location. These parts would have to be paid for, in advance, by the Complainant, before being ordered by the Company. This was disclosed to the Complainant, during the early part of discussions, with the Company. The first part of the Project, was to be the compilation of a build-list, and the signed approval of the Company's contract, by the Complainant. Since the Company was located in *********, and the Complainant was located in *******, the generation of the build-list was to be accomplished via a Zoom-call between the company and the Complainant. A number of telephone calls, between the Company and the Complainant were held, during which the Complainant outlined his desires for the completed, restored automobile, and the Company outlined it's desires, for the nature of the new, component parts, such that a safe, restored automobile, would be assembled. The timelime is not distinctly recalled by the Complainant, but at some point. during these telephone calls, the company indicated that the prices of these new, modern parts would be increasing, on January 1st, 2024. The Complainant will not speculate on the Company's intent, with regard to that communication. Was it an altruistic gesture, made in order to keep the Complainants Project cost at a minimum? Was it made, in order to encourage the Complainant to expedite the process of build-list generation and contract approval? The Complainant will not speculate on the Company's intent, with regard to that communication. Within several days, prior to October 30th, 2023, the Company expressed a desire to conduct a Zoom-call to accomplish the build-list on October 30th, 2023. *********** did not know the exact time on October 30th, that would be most convenient, but communicated that they would contact the Complainant prior to October 30th, to set the time. The Complainant was advised during the telephone conversation phase, that a $2,500 deposit would be required, before the company would be able to order any new parts. Without speculating on the company's intent, in communicating that the prices would be going up on January 1st,, the Complainant felt it desirable. to submit a deposit, and complete the contract signing ASAP. Then the new parts would be ordered before January 1st. Since the build-list was to be generated, but the Contract not mutually approved, the Complainant felt that submitting half the required deposit was appropriate. On October 25th 2023 the Complainant submitted a deposit of $1250, to the company. As of October 30th, they had not communicated the proposed time to the Complainant, and the Complainant had to call the company to find out when the Zoom-call would commence. This was the first instance of "silence" by the Company. Pursuant to this, the Company contacted the Complainant, to conduct the Zoom-call. After the above-described events, the build-list was generated. The Zoom-call lasted approximately 1 and 1/2 hours, to conduct the build-list generation. Following the submission of the deposit, the Complainant proceeded to examine the Contract. The Complainant had been involved with several other contracts previously, in unrelated situations. The Complainant's experience with contracts was that each party agreed to certain concessions, in exchange for certain guarantees, from the counter-party. In the Company's Contract, it seemed that the company was requiring multiple concessions from the Complainant, but offering no guarantees in exchange. The most glaring example of this, was the specification of the Complainant's payment obligations, and the "As Is" clause, in which there are no obligatory specifications for the restored automobile, but rather, that the restored automobile will be delivered in "as is" condition. What "as is" means at that point in time, when the restored automobile "isn't" represented quite an enigma to the Complainant. This clause caused so much difficulty, in accepting the Contract, to the Complainant, that the Complainant requested an additional zoom-meeting with the Company, to explain the Complainant's concerns, and negotiate mutually acceptable changes to the Contract, to resolve this difficulty. This request was made on or about November 22, 2023.This was the second instance, where the Company remained "silent" and did not respond to the Complainant's request. The memo in the bill-pay payment, for this deposit was "Half Deposit for 69 Camaro rest." The Complainant's recollection is, that no mention, was ever made, by the Company, that the Complainant would be obligated to pay any of the Company's restoration planning costs. The Complainant's payment obligations were stated by the Company, to be the cost of new parts, and the labor involved, by the Company, in assembling the new parts, as well as the costs of the sub-contractor, to modify the existing body, which was used in the restoration. It was never mentioned, that the Complainant would be obligated, to pay the Company's labor costs associated with the planning of the restoration. On November 24th 2023, the Complainant asked once again, in an email, when the company planned to hold the requested zoom-call, and to let the Complainant know a convenient day/time, for the following week. *********** did not respond to the multiple requests, and remained "silent" again. The Complainant did not bring the issue up again, and waited approximately six weeks for a response. On or about January 5, 2024 the Complainant contacted the Company, and stated that the Complainant could not accept the terms of the Company's contract, and requested a refund of the Complainants $1,250 deposit.II. Nature and History of the Dispute.A. Nature of the Dispute The nature of the dispute is quite simple: *********** refused to refund the complete deposit, and the Company felt it was justified in charging the Complainant for the Companies labor costs in planning for the restoration.B. History of the Dispute The history of the dispute is very well documented, because there were no further telephone conversations, and all communications were accomplished by email. On January 9th 2024, the company responded to the Complainants request, with the following communication: "The deposit you have made this far goes to the time to put the numbers together, zoom meetings numerous calls, all the emails and calls we did to get the information to you and going through the contract and build sheet. I will go back and calculate the time we used of the 1250 and get you a check for that difference.Thank you, "On January 9th 2024, the Complainant responded back to the Company via an email: "[NAME (deleted)], there are several issues to be considered:1) I never agreed to be bound by the terms of your agreement 2)you mentioned up front that I would have to pay for all of the new parts in advance, before you ordered them. You never mentioned that the restored automobile would be delivered in an "as is" condition. This is equally as important as the payment terms, yet was never mentioned up front.3) You told me that the prices of the parts would go up on January 1st, and that induced me to send the $1250 deposit,  so that the parts could be ordered before January 1st hopefully. 4) For every minute that you spent on the project, I spent an equal amount of time, either in phone calls, or zoom calls. So, if you feel that you should be compensated, I feel that I should be compensated equally. If you had mentioned, up front, that this was to be an "as is" deliverable, then the process would have been short circuited immediately, and neither you, nor I, would have spent any time on the project.5) Since you spent no time improving my automobile, since no parts have been ordered,  And since the absolutely astounding "as is" clause, was never mentioned, prior to my deposit submission,  It is hard to understand why you feel compensation is appropriate. Please refund my $1250 deposit,  And we can both move forward, to more promising, and rewarding endeavors. Sincerely, **********************"On January 26, 2024, the Complainant received a partial refund of his $1,250 deposit, in the amount of one thousand dollars.On January 29, 2024, the Complainant sent the following communication to the Company, via email:"[NAME (deleted)], I am in receipt of your check for $1000.  The remaining balance to refund my deposit is $250.  It may have been deceptive, to float the notion, that new part prices were going up on January 1st, 2024, as an inducement to submit a deposit, before I had a chance to read the  contract,  and complete my due diligence. l feel/think that I am likely to prevail in a lawsuit, for the reasons I described in my previous Communication - no need to repeat. Just to reiterate: the $1250 deposit, was to order parts before the January 1st price increase, not to fund your labor costs. If you will mail me a check for an additional $125, we can split the disputed $250, and put this conflict in the rearview mirror. To drag us both through the legal system seems somewhat extreme, for a $250  Outcome. I am glad to wait a little while, to  Determine if you would like to resolve this dispute directly between us.Sincerely, ********************* ***************************************"To be clear, the Complainant is NOT accusing the Company of intentional deception, But the Complainant's reaction to learning from the Company, that prices were going up on January 1st, 2024, was to expedite the submission of a deposit, without realizing, that the "AS IS" clause was contained in the contract.As no further response was received by the Complainant, from the Company, as of February 26, 2024, the Complainant began to compile the facts of the Complaint.To the best of the Complainants recollection, these facts represent the relationship between the Company and the Complainant, as well as the facts of the nature and history of the dispute. Sincerely,********************** III. Summary of the Complaint A. The modern parts used, would have to be paid for, in advance, by the Complainant, before being ordered by the Company.B. At some point, during the telephone calls, the company indicated that the prices of the new, modern parts would be increasing, on January 1st, 2024 C. Within several days, prior to October 30th, 2023, the Company expressed a desire to conduct a Zoom-call to accomplish the build-list on October 30th, 2023. This was prior to the mutual acceptance of the Company's Contract by both parties.D. *********** did not follow through, on contacting the Complainant, to advise the time of the Zoom-call, to generate the Build-List, as promised. ( 1st instance of Company's "silence" )E. The Complainant was advised during the telephone conversation phase, that a $2,500 deposit would be required, before the company would be able to order any new parts F. Since the Build-List was generated, but the Contract not mutually approved, the Complainant felt that submitting half the required deposit ($1,250) was appropriate. G. Following the deposit submission, the Complainant discovered the "As Is" deliverable clause, in the Contract.H. The Complainant requested a second Zoom-Call to express the Complainant's concerns with the Company's Contract, pursuant to which, the company was non-responsive ( 2nd instance of Company's "silence" ).I. The memo in the bill-pay payment, for this deposit was "Half Deposit for 69 Camaro rest." This payment was for labor costs, directly associated with restoration activities on the automobile.J. The Complainant waited approximately six weeks for a response. On or about January 5, 2024 the Complainant contacted the Company, and stated that the Complainant could not accept the terms of the Company's contract, and requested a refund of the Complainants $1250 deposit.K. *********** did not respond to any further communications by the Complainant, and ultimately issued a partial refund of $1000. This represented a withholding of $250 of the Complainant's deposit, which is the subject of the dispute, and further described in the details of the Complaint.The Complainant makes one final statement, which is obviously not a fact, but an opinion. For the Company to propose a document, which would probably fail the test of a contract, or at least be deemed unconscionable, and then refuse to refund the Complainant's deposit in-full, when exposed, is hardly representative of "Better Business" behavior !