I am writing to you at the request of my client, Jason Dolson, sole owner of TechPro Computer Repair. He has retained my services at this point simply for the purpose of responding to the Complaint of [member name removed], owner of [member company name removed] in Hudson, Ohio. My client’s initial contact with [members company name removed] was on or about July 22, 2014 when my client’s company, TechPro Computer Repair, received a call from [member name removed], who explained that he was looking for a company to install 3 new computers and printers that would function as POS (Point of Sale) systems and also transfer data from his old Windows XP computers to the new Windows 7 Pro computers. [member name removed] stated that he needed a software update from Granbury Restaurant Solutions, the company that evidently owned and provided the supplies and services for the POS software system. The software involved is called Vitalink or Vlink. Despite [member name removed] initial descriptions of the parameters and score of he update work, it became apparant that new hardware was required, hardware that was compatible with the Windows 7 Pro, 64 bit operating system. One new desktop unit at [member company name removed] was compatible with Windows 7 Pro, 64 bit operation system and it had already been set up with the software having been installed by Granbury prior to Jason’s participation into this matter. But, the old servers and computers would not run the new Granbury software and had to be replaced. Jason Dolson explained to [member name removed] that TechPro could transfer the [member company name removed] files and set up the new computers, but that the Granbury software that ran the whole Vlink system could not be directly transferred from the old computers to the new, but rather would require a clean installed on the new machines. Granbury’s participation was mandatory in order to provide the Vlink software, consequently Jason asked [member name removed] to contact Grandbury ahead of time to see if Grandbury had any specific instruction or software requirements that may be needed for the installation of their particular software onto the [member company name removed] computers. [member name removed] sent Jason instructions via an email he had received from a person known as “Sterling”, who was identified as a Grandbury employee. My client received this email on on July 26 2014 and it contained detailed instructions. In these instructions Sterling purported to explain how to configure the new computers and what data to back-up from the old computers. After reading these instructions Jason was confident that he could perform the job [member company name removed] asked of him having been additionally assured that Grandbury would work with him when it came time to set up the software on the new computers. My client did a preliminary walk through on Sunday July 27, 2014 to inspect the current network configuration and see if any other hardware or cabling would be needed and on July 28th, Jason arrive at [member company name removed] around 10:30 a.m. to begin his work. [member name removed] showed Jason 3 new desktop computers still in boxes but ready to go and as previously stated, there was one new computer that was already plugged in and ready to be networked to the 3 new computers. Jason began to follow the instructions Sterling to get each machine ready for the Vlink installation. Jason transferred the back-up files from the server as instructed and had everything ready for the Grandbury Vlink installation. At this point, Jason called Granbury to see what was next required to install the Vlink, POS software. Unfortunately, upon this call Granbury was inexplicably reluctant to cooperate. It appeared to have been a matter of money. The Granbury rep said that they could not help and that [member name removed] would need to pay for a new software install on each of his new machines. [member name removed] told my client that he did pay for a new software install on each of his new machines. [member name removed] told my client that he did not feel as though he should have to pay for the software twice as he had already paid for it once on the old Windows XP machines, a position with which Jason was in complete agreement! After some initial haggling on the phone, Jason was finally able to speak with “Sterling” the Granbury employee who had earlier emailed the instructions (attached). Sterling told Jason Dolson that [member name removed] had already been scheduled for a Vlink software upgrade for August 1, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. and that Jason Dolson needed to have the new computers in place and ready to go before then. So, Jason told [member name removed] that the only thing he could do at this point was to wait until Friday to complete the install. Jason then went back to the 3 new computers which had been finishing Windows updates and he made a pivotal discovery. Two of the 3 new computers were showing errors in the Windows activation keys. When he investigated he found that the company that had supplied the computers had installed Windows 7 home edition, instead of the required Windows 7 Pro edition. This meant that they would not be compatible with the POS system software update. Immediately upon Jason’s discovery of this problem he informed [member name removed] of the problem whereupon [member name removed] immediately called Microcenter, where [member company name removed] had bought the computers. [member name removed] negotiated with Microcenter over the phone and after some back and forth [member name removed] said Microcenter had agreed to give him 3 brand new computers but that [member name removed] would have to pick them up. The implication of this was that all the work my client had performed on the two non-Pro computers would now have to be done all over again. [member name removed] agreed to pick up the 3 new replacement computers and he agreed to deliver them to my client at the ProTech store location so that Jason could work on them without having to bill [member name removed] for more and more service call time. Jason expressed that he feels very sympathetic to [member name removed] and [member company name removed] in this situation and he therefore agreed to issue an additional credit to [member name removed] for some (2 hours) of the additional time that would be spent configuring the 3 replacement computers since [member name removed] was delivering them to Jason at Jason’s shop. So, when Jason left the [member company name removed] location on July 28, 2014 he had already set everything up according to Granbury’s instructions. Nevertheless, Jason received a call from [member name removed] stating that Granbury now refused to install the software and that all the work Jason had completed would have to be taken down and the old computers put back in place. He stated that once again, Granbury wanted more money even though Grandbury employees told [member name removed] and Jason that they agreed to permit the install onto the new Windows Pro-64 machines free of charge. [member name removed] told Jason that [member company name removed] manager, [member name removed], would work with [member name removed] and that they would together swap out everything because he did not want to have to pay my client to do the work again. Again, though my client was very sympathetic with [member name removed] situation, Jason could not offer his services completely free of charge just because Granbury decided to try to squeeze more money out of [member name removed] and [member company name removed]. [member name removed] agreed at that time that Jason was not at fault; just stuck in the middle. On August 1, 2014 Jason sent [member name removed] an invoice for his time on August 1, 2014 and [member name removed] paid via credit card over the phone. [member name removed] asked if Jason could document in writing all that transpired since Jason began his work at [member company name removed] on the Granbury system, ostensibly for the purpose of trying to convince Granbury to let [member name removed] update the new computers without further licensing charges from Granbury. Again, [member name removed] and [member company name removed] claimed that Granbury had already agreed that it would not charge [member company name removed] any further fees. Jason accepted [member name removed] request in the hope that it would help [member name removed] to get Granbury to cooperate instead just saying one thing and doing another. On August 2, 2014 [member name removed] contacted Jason via email with questions about hooking up the old computers and what cables went where and so forth. In response to this request, Jason emailed [member name removed] that [member name removed] manager, [member name removed], had helped Jason during Jason’s work at [member company name removed] and that [member name removed] would probably have a good idea how to hook the old printers back up. Jason answered all their questions and did not hear back for several days. On August 12, 2014 [member name removed] emailed Jason at 3:14 a.m. He informed Jason that he was installed the new computers again and was having trouble and asked Jason if Jason could come to [member company name removed] to assist with the attampted as Jason was directed to do by Granbury was telling [member company name removed] to do. It was apparent at this point that Granbury was trying to arm-twist [member company name removed] into more licensing payments and/or installation help fees. Jason states that he decided at this point, with apologies to [member name removed], that he could not assist him with this job due to the involvement of the POS company, Granbury which Jason believed had been uncooperative and misleading regarding the installation and the fees. When Jason told [member name removed] this [member name removed] became upset and said that he did not want to have to find another technician; that it would take too much time. Jason once again apologized and stated that due to Granbury’s lack of effort at accomplishing the installations, TechPro could not be involved any further. [member name removed] asked again and when Jason explained his position again, [member name removed] got angry and claimed that he was not questioning whether Jason had done what he was asked to do. Jason states that he then asked [member name removed] point-blank whether or not [member name removed] thought Jason had lived up to what he had promised and [member name removed] responded that “Yes” he was happy with all the work Jason had done. Jason had been promptly paid for his work by [member name removed] but Jason was under no obligation to accept any more work. [member name removed] found another tech to do the additional work he needed to attempt to accommodate the ever-changing Granbury instructions. The new tech charged [member name removed] $134.00. He asks in his complaint for a “credit” against the $134.00 fee for the new tech. [member name removed] admits that more work needed done. The additional work was what [member name removed] was trying to get Jason to do so it seems to Jason and TechPro that whether it was done by Jason or another tech, it was still up to [member name removed] to pay for it. Jason agreed that [member name removed] paid him for the work Jason completed but he does not feel that he should be indentured to him and to [member company name removed]. If he doesn’t wish to work for [member company name removed] anymore for any reason, that is his right. Jason certainly agreed with [member name removed] that Granbury had behaved badly and that Jason had been paid for all his work up to that point and [member name removed] had been satisfied with his work. The problem was simply that [member name removed] wanted Jason to continue in a relationship that necessarily involved this third-party, Granbury, and that Granbury had displayed to Jason’s satisfaction that it was fruitless to continue to work in a situation in which none of the parties was going to be happy; that Granbury’s failure to cooperate had poisoned the deal and that Jason believed that he ran the risk the he would ultimately be held accountable for Granbury’s failures and that the best thing he could do was to walk away. He did. On his behalf, we hope you will review this letter of explanation and that you please take the time to review the additional information provided. We think the information provided positively shows that the statements in [member name removed] complaint are without merit. My client was given different instructions as to how to proceed by Granbury as is documented herein. He fully understands [member name removed] frustration with the situation, but the party he needs to address his complaint to is Granbury, not TechPro, and I am sure [member name removed] has already considered and rejected this approach because Granbury would never take the time to even bother with a response as Jason has done. Yours truly, Lawrence J. Cook Attorney for Jason Dolson
