Powercombined, LLC

In response to the aforementioned complaint the position of our company is that the customer entered into an agreement for access to online software with terms for custom developmentOur company abided by the terms and delivered the initial custom work on time as well as completed subsequent orders
from this customerWe have done due diligence in reviewing all correspondence with this client, our records of work performed, system logs of delivery, and written acknowledgment of receipt by the customerThe customer has received prompt attention to support requests by email, phone, and video conferencingThe customer has also been informed of his options per the terms of the agreement. Kind Regards,______________________________________________________*** ***Business & Systems IntegrationLollyLaw

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The agreement with Powerscombined LLC (d/b/a LollyLaw) (hereinafter “the Company”) expressly required that the Company perform customizations to its online software on or before September 30, 2015.  The assertion that “out company abided by the terms and delivered the initial custom work on time . . .” is a misrepresentation.  In fact, I have email correspondence from [redacted] and [redacted] dated after September 30, 2015, wherein both individuals acknowledge that the contractually mandated customizations were not completed.The agreement does not contain any reference to “initial custom work,” which seems to be a tacit admission by the Company that it failed to perform the contractually mandated customizations.  In fact, [redacted] provided a written admission on January 6, 2016 that, as of December 2015, contractually mandated customizations for the Client Bridge – an online software platform that was the focus of the entire agreement – had not been validated and “roll[ed] into [the] production version.”  [redacted] asserted that the reason these contractually mandated customizations had not been performed as of December 2015 (i.e., more than two months after the contractually mandated performance date of September 30, 2015) was because I informed the Company on December 6, 2015 of the need to contract with another online software provider – which was necessitated because of the Company’s breach of contract. Despite numerous requests over the course of several month, the Company has not performed the contractually mandated customization nor has it been prompt in responding requests to perform its contractual obligation – particularly in the months of November 2015 and December 2015.  The Company acted in bad faith in representing its capacity to perform the contractually mandated customizations for purposes of inducing me into executing the agreement.  The Company has continued to act in bad faith with respect to performance of its contractual obligations, resolution of its breach of contract, and representations made to the Idaho Revdex.com. 
Regards,[redacted]