[Attorney’s Name] [Law Firm Name] [Address]
[City, State, ZIP]
Dear [Attorney’s Name],
RE: RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR PAYMENT BY RECHARGEDMD LLC
Reference is made to the above matter and to the demand letter dated [date of the demand].
I am writing in response to the said demand for payment received by myself written on behalf of RechargedMD LLC (“RM”) regarding the software services provided by my company, Optima Branding. I appreciate the concerns raised in the demand letter and provide a comprehensive explanation of the situation, and therefore respond as herein below.
First and foremost, I would like to emphasize that in my 22 years of web development experience, I have never come across a circumstance in which a client sought a full refund after expressing satisfaction with the work and even going ahead to write a positive review. The veracity and integrity of the claims stated in the demand letter are called into question as a result therefore. I therefore wish to respond as follows:
- Changes in Project Direction: It is true that there were significant changes in the direction of the project during its course, which posed challenges and required adjustments. We were always flexible and willing to accommodate RM’s evolving requirements. Any delays or minor issues were promptly rectified, and we maintained open lines of communication with RM throughout the project to ensure their satisfaction.
- Functionality and Performance: I would like to emphasize that we have a fully functional copy of the website, which runs smoothly and exhibits optimal performance. Every function has been thoroughly tested and meets the required specifications. We have utilized the same codebase for numerous successful websites, and the claim that our work is defective and unsuitable for RM’s intended use contradicts the evidence of its functionality and performance.
- Milestone Payments and Inspections: The project was conducted through Upwork, a reputable platform that facilitates freelance contracts. All 19 milestones were meticulously inspected by all parties involved, and upon review and approval, payments were released. This process, as outlined in Upwork’s Fixed Price Service Contract Escrow Instructions, ensures that the client inspects and approves the deliverables associated with each milestone before releasing payment. The fact that RM approved all milestones and completed the project without raising any concerns regarding the quality or functionality of the work further supports the conclusion that our services were satisfactory.
- Expert Opinion and Standards: The demand letter mentions that another development firm was hired to review our work and identified alleged issues. However, the letter fails to provide any details about the expertise, qualifications, or the methodology employed by the independent professional reviewer. It is imperative to understand the credentials and reputation of this reviewer, as well as the specific standards against which they evaluated our work. Without this crucial information, it is challenging to assess the credibility and validity of their findings.
- Lack of Bug Resolution Requests: It is essential to note that RM never formally communicated any specific requests for bug resolution. As per the contracts, we were prepared and obligated to rectify any defects or issues identified by RM. However, without any formal communication from RM regarding these issues, we were unable to address them. Effective communication and collaboration are paramount in the development process, and we have always been readily available to address any concerns raised by RM.
- Upwork Dispute Resolution Process: The client previously initiated a formal dispute through Upwork’s support system, requesting mediation on the same issues. However, as per Upwork’s policies, mediation is not provided for projects in which milestones have already been approved by the client. The fact that the dispute did not proceed beyond the initial stage further supports the notion that the client’s demand for a refund lacks a substantial basis.
In light of the above, we firmly reject the demand for repayment made in the demand letter. The software services provided by Optima Branding were executed in accordance with industry standards, contractual agreements, and the requirements outlined by RM. We firmly believe that our work product is of high quality and fully satisfies the agreed- upon specifications.
We remain open to resolving this matter amicably, as we prefer to avoid the time and expense associated with litigation. However, we cannot entertain the demand for repayment as it lacks a substantial basis.
Please consider this response as a comprehensive refutation of the allegations made in the demand letter. I kindly request that you relay our response to RM and reevaluate the claims presented.
Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Stephen Karigo, Optima Branding,
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )