Flooring MD

"Mr. Dean, the Owner of Flooring MD. First did work for this client in her Hollis NH home back in December of 2017. This client had shopped and paid for all the supplies herself. She was unhappy with the color and she had ejected Flooring MD from the job stating that the wrong color stain was used, however, we used only what she bought. She had hired another flooring company to finish the December project. Within a week, she called Flooring MD begging for us to come back. She stated the other company didn't know what they were doing. We returned and finished the project. When contacted to do the second job at this client's vacation home an hour and a half away, we went against our better judgment and booked the job. The client was very specific on the dates she wanted the work done. It was made very clear that the owner Mr Dean would NOT be present on the dates she insisted on. He would be out of the country that week. She wanted the work done and went ahead and scheduled it. This time we provided the materials. This client chose the stain used from an array of stain samples provided. We used the sample she chose and finished the job. However, once again she claimed that the wrong color stain had been used. She claimed the stain was too light; but, this (once again) was the stain she chose. Mr. Dean was called with heaped verbal abuse, accompanied by screaming in a tantrum like manner. Mr. Dean indicated to the client he would inspect the floor upon his return to the United States. She demanded that he appear the following day. Mr. Dean could not meet her demand due to the extensive travel time to return. She then denied Mr. Dean access to inspect the flooring. The Client has also complained that polyurethane was applied. That is correct, and it was the correct procedure. The job was finished. The failure to apply the polyurethane coating would have breached industry standards of workmanship. In fact, an extra heavy commercial grade was applied to give the flooring maximum protection. Consistent with the first job, She did make groundless allegations including Mr. Dean falsely used the wrong stain. However, again it was the stain she chose. Mr. Dean, to his good nature when dealing with unreasonable demands offered to settle and take the loss. To extricate himself from dealing with this client further, he did agree to refund $200.00 which was the $800.00 deposit less the $600.00 cost of materials. This left Mr. Dean with a loss exceeding $1,500.00 for payroll, transportation costs and lost compensation for his work. Mr. Dean did meet with the clients Father - in - Law, who was the financier of all the projects. He was shown the itemized bill for $600.00 in materials. Mr. Dean gave the father - in - law $200.00 to close the matter. Mr. Dean explained the situation to The Father-in-law. He was pleased, and thanked Mr. Dean for his efforts to resolve the matter. They shook hands. The matter was closed"