Running business from the other's pockets
"Gateway2discovery, via its principal Amine Britel, has made an order for items to be used for a show Gateway2discovery has planned to attend. Once done with the show, Gateway2discovery called the credit card company reporting that the products are defective. Charge back followed and merchandise lost its monies"
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
Ottawa Small Cliams Court
161 Elgin St
Ottawa, ON K2P 2K1
Claim No. 07-SC-100789
AA PRINTING INC. Plaintiff
GATEWAY2DISCOVERY AND AMINE BRITEL Defendant
- Gateway2Discovery, customer, has ordered items according to invoice number 2006-932 classified as exhibit "A", dated June 2nd 2006, for an event will be held on June 17-18, 2006 as provided by defendant. Exhibit "B"
- The order was produced and delivered according to specifications and layout communicated via emails and phone call over several days. It is estimated that the total time on this order is 18 hours including emails Exhibit "C-1" | Exhibit "C-2". (Design, processing order, post ordering)
- The defendant paid by authorizing AA Printing Inc to charge his card remotely. Exhibit "D"
- Once the defendant done with the event, Exhibit "B", he contacted the credit card issuer, CITINANK, claiming all the products delivered defective demanding a full refund. Exhibit "E-1" | Exhibit "E-2"
- The defendant claimed the business cards defective even though he e-mailed the plaintiff providing that "the cards are fine". Exhibit "F"
- The defendant claimed full refund even though the customer/defendant 1 never had any recorded problems with the lamps, which are part of the invoice.
- In Exhibit "G", his partner, Catherine Goedecker, confirmed in capital letters that the posters fitted the back wall display units. Yet Amine Britel, the principal, contradicted her statement claiming the posters did not fit and asked for full refund. Exhibit "G" is part of the document sent to CITIBANK for justify his request for a full refund.
- The defendant complained about the poster, on delivery, that they were dented. Photo provided by the defendant himself shows none. Exhibit "H"
- When the plaintiff offered to re-do the posters, the defendant wanted us to mount them on hard substrate, such service was not specified in the numerous e-mails and the invoice. Defendant did not pay for such service as a requirement. Defendant were able to do so at their own location were they reside. Exhibit "I"
- The customer, defendant, even claimed refund for the monies paid on layout/design, which he approved himself. As specified in Exhibit "C" e-mails and additional phone calls