Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 brendan wrote:
OP, sorry to view/read your tale of woe. It has put me off commissioning as I can't afford the pros elsewhere discussed in this thread.

Local painters doing it for spare cash is probably a way to do it on a budget, you get so see them in person to check out their work and pay in much smaller chunks of cash.

EDIT: although you may well find they get 'bored' or just stop taking on paid work so you may not get all of a large army done over the time period finanaces mean you need to take

 Ouze wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
It's not really our business, though, is it?

It becomes salient in terms of advice. If he paid $900, no one would suggest litigation, if he paid $9,000, we can't suggest small claims court. Also, it's a lot easier to say "cut your losses" if he's out a couple of hundred dollars vs a couple of thousand dollars.

You can still go to small claims for $9K in most of the country. Most states have it as $10K or less.

 Ouze wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
It's not really our business, though, is it?

It becomes salient in terms of advice. If he paid $900, no one would suggest litigation, if he paid $9,000, we can't suggest small claims court. Also, it's a lot easier to say "cut your losses" if he's out a couple of hundred dollars vs a couple of thousand dollars.

This is far too much of a rational piece of advice, i demand you desist in you lethargy and pick up your pitch forks and torches.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 brendan wrote:
OP, sorry to view/read your tale of woe. It has put me off commissioning as I can't afford the pros elsewhere discussed in this thread.

Local painters doing it for spare cash is probably a way to do it on a budget, you get so see them in person to check out their work and pay in much smaller chunks of cash.

EDIT: although you may well find they get 'bored' or just stop taking on paid work so you may not get all of a large army done over the time period finanaces mean you need to take

Yeah, the problem with such a large army that you want painted to a reasonably good quality... it's just a huge amount of work. For someone to do it in their free time you're looking at 6 months to a year assuming they're dedicating a few hours a day to it on average. Even doing it as a full time job you're looking at 3 or 4 months of work.

That's not something most small time commission painters are set up to do. Only people who are doing it as a job or have a studio with multiple workers would even consider it... assuming they actually made a realistic timeline. I'm sure a lot of small time commission painters just starting out might accept it and then a week in to the project think "what the hell have I gotten myself in to."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
It's not really our business, though, is it?

It becomes salient in terms of advice. If he paid $900, no one would suggest litigation, if he paid $9,000, we can't suggest small claims court. Also, it's a lot easier to say "cut your losses" if he's out a couple of hundred dollars vs a couple of thousand dollars.

You can still go to small claims for $9K in most of the country. Most states have it as $10K or less.

It has a surprisingly large variance across the US, ranging from $2.5K in Kentucky and Rhode Island up to $25k in Tennessee.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

Yah, Sept he would still be stuck with that God awful object source lighting he didn't even want in the 1st place.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

Which is not reasonable because the army uses OOP models, conversions he has done himself and would take a long time to do. Not to mention the fact they've already shown themselves to be unreliable.

I will say though... I don't really think tenebre should have posted his 2nd video until after he came to some sort of resolution. As interesting as it was to watch (though I did skip through bits as I don't have time to watch it through ) I don't think it benefits the situation to post that video until it was without a doubt you weren't going to get a satisfactory resolution and/or if BTP were just stalling.

 Lockark wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

Yah, Sept he would still be stuck with that God awful object source lighting he didn't even want in the 1st place.

One assumes the whole point of redoing the army is to take the feedback into consideration. Should he get a carbon copy of what he has now, then most certainly they should be bashed about it, but sadly none of us has a crystal ball thus that should wait until the redo is complete.

He purchased a service, a process, at the end of the process he is not satisfied with the result and requests very publicly that they fix the mistake. They have offered exactly that.

Dont get me wrong, should they come up after the second process with the same crap results, i will be the first to grab my pitch forks and torches, but their attempt to rectify the situation has in my opinion been reasonable up to this point.

Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

Yah, Sept he would still be stuck with that God awful object source lighting he didn't even want in the 1st place.

One assumes the whole point of redoing the army is to take the feedback into consideration. Should he get a carbon copy of what he has now, then most certainly they should be bashed about it, but sadly none of us has a crystal ball thus that should wait until the redo is complete.

Wait. Are you talking about the option were they sell his army and try to make a better one?

A army full of op models that they even said on camera they did not recognize?

The best conversations in that army were the ones the OP did. Not to mention Shawn has discarded the op's opinion multiple times.

I've said this before in this thread, but I'll repeat, more clearly:

To rework this army is a massive, massive undertaking.

It is not possible to remove / retouch much of it because of the 'OSL' glow effect. (I use quote marks to imply derision).

It's a full repaint (and most likely rebase) of each and every model that is needed to up the quality in any meaningful way.

I would be dubious about this - cleaning up existing models and/or stripping paintwork if required takes FAR LONGER than assembling fresh models off sprue. This is actually the reason I don't take on 'redo' jobs. My pay per hour is already low enough, without taking on more work for no return.

Edit: Due to the number of OOP and converted models, it is extremely difficult to reproduce the model collection.

 Lockark wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Lockark wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The problem is, xxvadrexx is BTP only will address the items marked as QC which are things like the goblin feet being pink etc. But they wont fix up the army in the way he originally wanted. Which means if BTP have their way then that means the army wont be fixed, it will just be minutely better.

So I think its best if he gets a refund since they didnt even do what he asked in the majority of cases. They cant fix it, they have to re do it. Which they wont do.

Second video minute 49:50

Yah, Sept he would still be stuck with that God awful object source lighting he didn't even want in the 1st place.

One assumes the whole point of redoing the army is to take the feedback into consideration. Should he get a carbon copy of what he has now, then most certainly they should be bashed about it, but sadly none of us has a crystal ball thus that should wait until the redo is complete.

Wait. Are you talking about the option were they sell his army and try to make a better one?

A army full of op models that they even said on camera they did not recognize?

The best conversations in that army were the ones the OP did. Not to mention Shawn has discarded the op's opinion multiple times.

That is not what he described on the video, what he said they offered him is for him to keep that army until the new one from scratch is completed, once the 2nd army is complete he can send in that one and they will send him the new one. Regarding the names of the models, lets not be childish here, there are thousands of models out there from thousands of manufactures, the fact that on a quick glance of the top of his head he got a few names mistaken does not really mean much.

Dont get me wrong, should they come up after the second process with the same crap results, i will be the first to grab my pitch forks and torches, but their attempt to rectify the situation has in my opinion been reasonable up to this point.

 neal1975 wrote:
Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

Keep in mind all of the options provided required removal of video and ceasing all action prior to BTP doing anything. Which would render me, the client, powerless and back on their terms and timelines.
BTP has already removed the option of flying out a painter as well as others due to the points i made in the video.

I will find resolution. But I will not be making more videos on BTP. If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

tenebre wrote:
If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

I think everyone is just curious how this situation is going to get resolved and the end result of the painted army, but that's going to be a while so maybe we should all calm down.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

tenebre wrote:
If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

I think everyone is just curious how this situation is going to get resolved and the end result of the painted army, but that's going to be a while so maybe we should all calm down.

I promise to post the result of what happens when i can. At this point I can say BTP is not willing to compromise on any point.

I will also make videos on the repainted army when that happens (however that may come about, but it will not be by BTP)

tenebre wrote:

 neal1975 wrote:
Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

Keep in mind all of the options provided required removal of video and ceasing all action prior to BTP doing anything. Which would render me, the client, powerless and back on their terms and timelines.
BTP has already removed the option of flying out a painter as well as others due to the points i made in the video.

I will find resolution. But I will not be making more videos on BTP. If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

Videos can be taken down as well as they can be re uploaded. Really, if the project is redone and for it to be done properly it requires time, regardless of who does it. At this point what do you exactly have to loose?, money you are not going to get, the army you can keep until the other project is finished, chasing down oop models is their problem not your and a follow up video on that is ofcousre warranted. I think you should take a step back chill out and let this play out. The follow up video on this does not need to be all rainbows and flowers either, the screw up was there regardless of what was done to rectify it afterwards. I happen to have worked a fair bit for big companies and customer service (and with its policies) and i tell you, you are getting as a reasonable attempt at rectifying the situation as you can expect, and in my opinion a reasonable one in general.

Now it could very well be that they screw up again, but that should not be your working assumption, your assumption should always be that rectification is possible otherwise there is no base for dialog.

xxvaderxx wrote:

tenebre wrote:

 neal1975 wrote:
Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

Keep in mind all of the options provided required removal of video and ceasing all action prior to BTP doing anything. Which would render me, the client, powerless and back on their terms and timelines.
BTP has already removed the option of flying out a painter as well as others due to the points i made in the video.

I will find resolution. But I will not be making more videos on BTP. If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

Videos can be taken down as well as they can be re uploaded. Really, if the project is redone and for it to be done properly it requires time, regardless of who does it. At this point what do you exactly have to loose?, money you are not going to get, the army you can keep until the other project is finished, chasing down oop models is their problem not your and a follow up video on that is ofcousre warranted. I think you should take a step back chill out and let this play out. The follow up video on this does not need to be all rainbows and flowers either, the screw up was there regardless of what was done to rectify it afterwards. I happen to have worked a fair bit for big companies and customer service (and with its policies) and i tell you, you are getting as a reasonable attempt at rectifying the situation as you can expect, and in my opinion a reasonable one in general.

Now it could very well be that they screw up again, but that should not be your working assumption, your assumption should always be that rectification is possible otherwise there is no base for dialog.

Does the fact that he asked multiple times for simple fixes and was ignored not mean anything to you?

Dialogue only works if both sides are listening. BTP had multiple opportunities to fix this and was asked multiple times to do so, as evidenced in the video. How many times must Tenebre be ignored before he stops accepting their attempts at repairs?

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont get me wrong, should they come up after the second process with the same crap results, i will be the first to grab my pitch forks and torches, but their attempt to rectify the situation has in my opinion been reasonable up to this point.

Except it's not their 2nd attempt. From the beginning the client was requesting communication on the project (which he was told would be fine). He requested images throughout the process which didn't come. The project went way beyond the initial allotted time. THEN the models finally got done (after some stalling on their part) and photographed and were unsatisfactory (as were the images themselves in evaluating the models). After trying to get those issues addressed he FINALLY received the unsatisfactory army.

I wasn't really trying to keep count, but if you then get them to paint a whole new army this would be, what, their 6th attempt to feth things up? How many times along the way of the newly painted army are they again going to do the wrong things and further delay the whole project? How are they going to deal with the fact some of the models are OOP or conversions by the client?

If it were as simple as them doing something, getting it wrong and then seeking to make amends, I would be agreeing with you, xxvaderxx, but after fething up on so many levels over the course of the whole project I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to seek a refund over giving them yet another chance of fixing it when they've already had several chances.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

tenebre wrote:

 neal1975 wrote:
Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

Keep in mind all of the options provided required removal of video and ceasing all action prior to BTP doing anything. Which would render me, the client, powerless and back on their terms and timelines.
BTP has already removed the option of flying out a painter as well as others due to the points i made in the video.

I will find resolution. But I will not be making more videos on BTP. If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

Videos can be taken down as well as they can be re uploaded. Really, if the project is redone and for it to be done properly it requires time, regardless of who does it. At this point what do you exactly have to loose?, money you are not going to get, the army you can keep until the other project is finished, chasing down oop models is their problem not your and a follow up video on that is ofcousre warranted. I think you should take a step back chill out and let this play out. The follow up video on this does not need to be all rainbows and flowers either, the screw up was there regardless of what was done to rectify it afterwards. I happen to have worked a fair bit for big companies and customer service (and with its policies) and i tell you, you are getting as a reasonable attempt at rectifying the situation as you can expect, and in my opinion a reasonable one in general.

Now it could very well be that they screw up again, but that should not be your working assumption, your assumption should always be that rectification is possible otherwise there is no base for dialog.

Does the fact that he asked multiple times for simple fixes and was ignored not mean anything to you?

Dialogue only works if both sides are listening. BTP had multiple opportunities to fix this and was asked multiple times to do so, as evidenced in the video. How many times must Tenebre be ignored before he stops accepting their attempts at repairs?

It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

The process broke down, granted, it cant be your working assumption that this is the norm and not the exception and at the same time work with the service provider for them to rectify the situation, both of this are contradictory.

Now if the same thing repeats on the rectification attempt, then yes most certainly you should start assuming that is the norm.

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

The manufacturer will refund 100% and profusely apologize.

My friend had a similar problem with cabinet work. The cacked up the 2nd time. Then immediately gave 50% refund and paid ANOTHER company to redo those. These were around $30k.

xxvaderxx wrote:

tenebre wrote:

 neal1975 wrote:
Tenebre - any update? where do things stand, and what is your course of action?

Keep in mind all of the options provided required removal of video and ceasing all action prior to BTP doing anything. Which would render me, the client, powerless and back on their terms and timelines.
BTP has already removed the option of flying out a painter as well as others due to the points i made in the video.

I will find resolution. But I will not be making more videos on BTP. If anyone does not have a clear picture of what happened by now ,,, I dont know what to say.

Videos can be taken down as well as they can be re uploaded. Really, if the project is redone and for it to be done properly it requires time, regardless of who does it. At this point what do you exactly have to loose?, money you are not going to get, the army you can keep until the other project is finished, chasing down oop models is their problem not your and a follow up video on that is ofcousre warranted. I think you should take a step back chill out and let this play out. The follow up video on this does not need to be all rainbows and flowers either, the screw up was there regardless of what was done to rectify it afterwards. I happen to have worked a fair bit for big companies and customer service (and with its policies) and i tell you, you are getting as a reasonable attempt at rectifying the situation as you can expect, and in my opinion a reasonable one in general.

Now it could very well be that they screw up again, but that should not be your working assumption, your assumption should always be that rectification is possible otherwise there is no base for dialog.

You've been told, multiple times, that they're not offering to rectify the problems he's identified, only the problems he identified which they agree are problems - for example the OSL stays, despite the fact they did it without even asking if he wanted it, and as far as I'm concerned that alone constitutes sufficient breach of trust that returning the army to them for further work is unreasonable. Beyond that though, we're not talking about giving them a second chance, they already had a second chance, and a third, to fix the problems tenebre described, and instead they fannied about for many times the original quoted length of time and then sent him a half-painted army. Telling tenebre he needs to "chill out" is a bit of a cheek frankly, most people would have posted a shouty expletive-filled rant not a product review in which he went out of his way to try and find positive things to say and the most agitation that was on display was an occasional exasperated sigh, and that would apply doubly when BTP's response to that review was to try and turn things around and make this whole fiasco somehow his fault and argue that many of the examples of their incompetence present in the army are merely subjective artistic interpretations.

In the UK, BTP's behaviour would be grounds to set Trading Standards on them and to sue the crap out of them, it's just a shame that the USA often doesn't have robust consumer protection laws.

xxvaderxx wrote:
It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

But that analogy is not even close to accurate.

A more apt analogy would be taking a car... a nice car, think an 60's mustang or corvette... to a mechanic that needs a lot of work. You outline the work you want done. They just do other things without actually telling you what they've done, they don't fix your original problems, they just do some other stuff... and they do it poorly... and they aren't communicating with you even though you are trying to communicate with them... and they are stalling along the way and taking far longer than they estimated and agreed to take.

THEN you finally see the car (because, ya know, lack of communication, you're only seeing it when they say they're done) and you ask them "wtf?" and ask them to fix some of the issues with their poor workmanship and not doing what you asked. They then screw around a bit more, fix a couple of the things you asked for but not all of them and again take longer than they say they'll take, finally delivering you your substandard car.

This is now the point Tenebre is at... does he send the car back to that same mechanic to have another crack at it? I know if it were me I sure as hell wouldn't be trusting them any more.

xxvaderxx wrote:
If i may be blunt, you being unwilling to ship the army to them (provided they pay the costs of said shipping) is simply not reasonable if you are looking for an amiable solution.
Yes it will take longer and yes it should be mentioned in a post resolution video, but them paying a 3rd company or you not giving them your army to fix is simply not realistic.
Personally i think you should go with the new army they option they offered you. Lets just say that worrying about them dissapearing with your models is a bit childish.

It absolutely is not. I've only been on Dakka for a couple years now and I've seen plenty of horror stories about armies being held for ages, if not flat out never returned. A pile of models (some apparently self converted and/or rare/hard to come by) worth thousands of dollars, along with thousands more being spent on their 'work' is not something to just hand back over to the people who proved unable to meet their own standards.

While we know the numbers aren't perfect, the general ones batted around have been 2k for the army and 8k for the painting, making that army a ten thousand dollar investment. Handing it back simply means instead of being out thousands for a substandard paint job, he's now out that money, plus the models, plus the potential need to buy them again should the worst case scenario happen.

That's not 'childish', that's recognizing that the service in question may not, in fact, be worth trusting with quite that much money and materials.

People have done dumber things over less. Frankly, I would have a hard time trusting them either. Perhaps a chance to redeem themselves, but for that much money? There's plenty of reasonable concern that it'd simply become throwing good money after bad.

tenebre wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

Then you cross that bridge when you get there. Not before.

xxvaderxx wrote:

tenebre wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

Then you cross that bridge when you get there. Not before.

You're not understanding. The bridge has been crossed.

tenebre wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

The manufacturer will refund 100% and profusely apologize.

My friend had a similar problem with cabinet work. The cacked up the 2nd time. Then immediately gave 50% refund and paid ANOTHER company to redo those. These were around $30k.

I don't know what the law is in the USA, I imagine it's similar when it comes to breaking contracts... but out here they are allowed to try and fix it if they can fix it within "reasonable time", if they can't fix it within reasonable time they're obliged to give you a refund. "reasonable time" is variable, but where it was specifically outlined in the original contract that the project would be completed in 8 weeks and it actually took 15 and the result is still unsatisfactory, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on when it comes to refusing a refund. Especially when the contract has been breached not only on time but also on what they said they would produce and the quality of what they did.

I would be interested to know if US law is similar, I imagine it would be, even if you don't have as good consumer protection laws as Australia/UK/etc, I imagine actual breach of contract would be a big thing, as would false advertising.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I would be interested to know if US law is similar, I imagine it would be, even if you don't have as good consumer protection laws as Australia/UK/etc, I imagine actual breach of contract would be a big thing.

US law is actually a bit more stringent than UK (havent dealt with contracts in Oz) law concerning contract execution and breach.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

tenebre wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

The manufacturer will refund 100% and profusely apologize.

My friend had a similar problem with cabinet work. The cacked up the 2nd time. Then immediately gave 50% refund and paid ANOTHER company to redo those. These were around $30k.

I don't know what the law is in the USA, I imagine it's similar when it comes to breaking contracts... but out here they are allowed to try and fix it if they can fix it within "reasonable time", if they can't fix it within reasonable time they're obliged to give you a refund. "reasonable time" is variable, but where it was specifically outlined in the original contract that the project would be completed in 8 weeks and it actually took 15 and the result is still unsatisfactory, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on when it comes to refusing a refund. Especially when the contract has been breached not only on time but also on what they said they would produce and the quality of what they did.

I would be interested to know if US law is similar, I imagine it would be, even if you don't have as good consumer protection laws as Australia/UK/etc, I imagine actual breach of contract would be a big thing, as would false advertising.

In the US, you can rent a house, stop paying rent, continue to live in the house and the home owner can't kick you out. We tend to favor bad behavior and criminals.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

tenebre wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:


It means a lot in regards to the sub par service he received, which again has already been established and nobody is disputing, at least from our side. It does not mean much in regards to which course to follow. If you buy an electronic product and when you receive it is defective, you are going to request an exchange, you are not going to not let the manufacturer rectify it because you assume all his products are defective. Same thing applies here.

Sure. Then you get another defective one.. Request 2nd exchange, then get a 3rd and 4th defective one.

Then you cross that bridge when you get there. Not before.

You're not understanding. The bridge has been crossed.

No, i am not agreeing which is different, the process was not over until he signed it over. After that he rightfully so uploaded a review with his experience of said process.

The process breaking down is not in dispute either.

Them giving it another crack at the process with the working assumption that this was the exception and not the norm is not unreasonable.

This kinds of services much like software development, which i happen to work on, should be weighted as a whole thing, not every single step individually. Communication broke down, ok, i get that, that is just one step in the process not multiple attempts at fixing the same project, even if that is what you call them. In fact i would venture most projects they handle go through some correction or modification steps, whether it be because the artist screws up or the client just changes his mind. The problem here was that his feedback was not taken into account for what ever reason until he eventually desisted and there you get the finished product.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Videos can be taken down as well as they can be re uploaded. Really, if the project is redone and for it to be done properly it requires time, regardless of who does it. At this point what do you exactly have to loose?

Unless of course they added the condition that the videos must PERMANENTLY be taken down before they do anything which given their alleged tone and stance is likely. If he breeched that assuming that they sent him more substandard work, he'd be open to a nuisance lawsuit himself for breeching that contract and I'm guessing that BTP has more money to throw at that to draw it out than a single lone gamer does.