The Gold Hunter

Our response to Brad and Deborah’s additional concerns are as follows:The statements provided by Brad and Deborah Richdale are not accurate The meeting on June 7, was to discuss an outstanding balance of $89K for PHand PHwork The verbal understanding reached at that time was that we would forgive $50K in exchange for $39K payment and was contingent on additional PO coverage for PH(prototype) and PH(first article build) work effort and pre-production unit sales It is inaccurate to represent the agreement without recognizing the future activity.Photetica expanded the scope of the project (e.grequested features to the product that were not in the original specification) which resulted in a cost higher than the original estimate based on the more limited feature set Photetica received detailed weekly invoices on all time and materials expended on their behalf per the time and materials contract they had agreed to.We are still willing to mediate this dispute under the original terms Photetica had agreed to.Respectfully,***

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: [redacted] became involved in this dispute on June 7, 2016, which is why his response begins with the meeting ofthat date He discounts all of the correspondence, to include admittance of mis-communication and over-stating costs, amongst other discussions,that occurred by the Technology Kitchen (TK)representatives prior to hisinvolvement Please refer to the exhibits that have been organized andtendered to both the Revdex.com and TKConsidering the time only since [redacted] become involved, please refer to appendix O wherein [redacted] presents a proposal that includes "services rendered: P1/Pcompletion = $39K.” For [redacted] to claim that the $39K proposed payment at that time included a contingency of PO’s for Phases & is ludicrous, and evidenced by this appendix Further, it was not until AFTER acknowledgement/receipt of Global Photon’s payment of $39K for the identified completed phases and work that the 1stindication of a “credit” contingency was raised (see appendix Q) The modus operandi of TK has been to hold our proprietary information, and paid for (in full) work product, hostage by claim of agreement for additional payments Our documentation / exhibits clearly establish this practice of coercion Regards, [redacted]

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:*** states, Photetica has not paid in full for work performedWhen we meet with TK on June 7, 2016, the purpose of the meeting was to work out a settlement for the parties to move forward*** gave Photetica on 6/15/ a revised fixed fee, that we verbally agreed toThey stated in that proposal, they were expecting $39K for PH & 2, which included all work performed to dateTK has not done any additional work for Photetica since that date and we paid the $39K they were askingAfter they cashed the check they ask for an additional $35K to release their work, now they have changed that number to $50KWe were also told that amount was for a completed PH &Now we have found out is not complete. *** states, the original estimate was revised at Photetica's request, to include significantly expanded scope over and above the original estimateThat never occurred until after the dispute, we only asked for a revised fixed fee after the exaggerated billing. *** has stated, "Photetica received detailed weekly invoices, reflecting this scope increase." The invoices they provided, were only weekly invoicesThey never identified an increase in the original estimate, nor received a change orderI am happy to supply these invoices. *** states, "Photetica wants the benefit of the additional work TK performed without ever paying for the workPhotetica has not only paid the original estimate, they have since paid the agreed amount for the additional work. TK asks Photetica, through a representative if we were willing to mediateHe expressed he thought that we wouldHowever, we feel we have already agreed to a settlement and paid, so we declinedWe expressed we preferred to have the Revdex.com to review our dispute. Thank you for your time in reviewing these mattersWe are happy to answer or provide any additional information. Regards,
*** * *** ***

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  [redacted] became involved in this dispute on June 7, 2016, which is why his response begins with the meeting ofthat date.  He discounts all of the correspondence, to include admittance of mis-communication and over-stating costs, amongst other discussions,that occurred by the Technology Kitchen (TK)representatives prior to hisinvolvement.  Please refer to the exhibits that have been organized andtendered to both the Revdex.com and TK. Considering the time only since [redacted] become involved, please refer to appendix O wherein [redacted] presents a proposal that includes "services rendered: P1/P2 completion = $39K.” For [redacted] to claim that the $39K proposed payment at that time included a contingency of PO’s for Phases 3 & 4 is ludicrous, and evidenced by this appendix.  Further, it was not until AFTER acknowledgement/receipt of Global Photon’s payment of $39K for the identified completed phases 1 and 2 work that the 1stindication of a “credit” contingency was raised (see appendix Q).  The modus operandi of TK has been to hold our proprietary information, and paid for (in full) work product, hostage by claim of agreement for additional payments.  Our documentation / exhibits clearly establish this practice of coercion. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Our response to Brad and Deborah’s additional concerns are as follows:The statements provided by Brad and Deborah Richdale are not accurate.  The meeting on June 7, 2016 was to discuss an outstanding balance of $89K for PH1 and PH2 work.  The verbal understanding reached at that time was that we would forgive $50K in exchange for $39K payment and was contingent on additional PO coverage for PH3 (prototype) and PH4 (first article build) work effort and pre-production unit sales.  It is inaccurate to represent the agreement without recognizing the future activity.Photetica expanded the scope of the project (e.g. requested features to the product that were not in the original specification) which resulted in a cost higher than the original estimate based on the more limited feature set.  Photetica received detailed weekly invoices on all time and materials expended on their behalf per the time and materials contract they had agreed to.We are still willing to mediate this dispute under the original terms Photetica had agreed to.Respectfully,[redacted]

The contract between Technology Kitchen and Photetica (Global Photon’s predecessor) stipulated that Technology Kitchen owned the design documentation it created until Photetica paid its account in full. Photetica has not paid in full for work performed. In fact, it still owes Technology Kitchen...

almost $50,000. The work at issue was contracted and performed on a time-and-material basis. The original estimate was revised, at Photetica’s request, to include significantly expanded scope over-and-above the original estimate. As such, the original estimate Photetica refers to has no bearing on the current dispute and is not a fair comparison for what Photetica currently owes.  The revised scope of work included many changes in requirements which substantially increased project development cost relative to original estimate. Photetica received detailed weekly invoices, however, reflecting this scope increase. Photetica received these detailed invoices for many weeks without complaining, so the cost impacts of Photetica’s requested scope changes were well understood and accepted. In short, Photetica wants the benefit of the additional work Technology Kitchen performed without ever paying Technology Kitchen for the work. Technology Kitchen offered in good faith to mediate this dispute. Photetica originally agreed to mediate with Technology Kitchen, but then withdrew their consent with no reason given.  Thank you for your time.  Please feel free to contact me directly if I can answer any additional questions.Respectfully,[redacted]