map-marker Pharr, Texas


In November 2014 Sprint we contract 5 lines , 60 % of calls were falling worse Customer Service we ever had. Nobody does anything are bandits who steal customer with a very poor service spent over 40 hours trying to fix multiple problems and finally we went to another company and file a complaint with the general attorney office .

We find out the excessive charges they are doing STAY AWAY FROM THIS LAIRS AND CROCKS.

In order to contract he service we spend over 8 hours at the store, they change the initial contract over charging $ 25.00 more per line with out any consent, the sales people tell you something but is not true a lot of lies involve this company, Customer Service is THE WORSE WE EVER HAD. We go over every step to try to fix the multiple problems but the answer was always we can not do anything else for you.

View full review
Reason of review:
Poor customer service

Preferred solution: Full refund

Timia Ngy
map-marker Sarasota, Florida

SpinTop Designs, Inc. dba. Spinit Designs Breach of contract on part of SPINIT as the defendant for the purpose of developing a new website

This complaint is in regards of a breach of contract on part of the defendant Ieva Berke Johnson (herein as “MRS. JOHNSON”) as the Managing Member of SpinTop Designs, Inc. dba. Spinit Designs (herein as “SPINIT”), against the Plaintiff, Niclas H. (herein as “NICLAS”) who is the CEO of a local Sarasota/Manatee Company, which resides in Manatee County. The majority of NICLAS’s clientele result from international and website based advertisements. In attempt to improve the company’s web-based advertisements, NICLAS contracted SPINIT, for the purpose of developing a new website, as a means to improve the company’s advertisement appeal to its current and incoming clientele. On September 18th at 02:18:00pm EST the Defendant, SPINIT, acknowledged a received down payment in the amount of $1,300.00 USD made by the Plaintiff, NICLAS, establishing the creation of a contract supported with a good faith payment of the said amount.

The terms of the contract, as expressed by MRS. JOHNSON and SPINIT in writing, promised the delivery of a full proof of the website design, one week from the beginning date of the contract, which was determined to begin on September 22nd, 2014. The defendant, also expressed in writing that upon delivery of the proof to NICLAS, the completion of the website should be concluded quickly, with some allotted time for minor editing and design work. Prior to delivery of the deposit for said amount, MRS. JOHNSON and NICLAS had met in person to discuss the details and design work that NICLAS wished to have present in the new website design. On September 30th, as promised, SPINIT delivered a proof to NICLAS regarding the new websites design. However, NICLAS was very upset and displeased with the quality of the given proof, given its complete disregard for his desired outcome. On September 30th, NICLAS contacted MRS. JOHNSON via phone, to discuss concerns of her ability to create a website with the necessary detail and quality that NICLAS required, and he expressed the desire to cancel the contract, and have the good faith deposit returned. SPINIT refused to refund any dollar amount of the given deposit, and claimed to take ‘personal offense’ to the phone call, which shortly ended thereafter.

The following day, on October 1st 2014, MRS. JOHNSON e-mailed NICLAS, stating she would continue to work with NICLAS, only on the condition that she could completely limit contact and discussions of the website design, to e-mail only. Such a request is completely unreasonable given the detailed and complicated communications involved in expressing an individual’s ideas and desired artistic outcomes. Furthermore, such a restriction on the clients ability to have contact with the website provider, alters the terms of the contract, and its originally promised services to be made available to the client, at the time the contract was created. On the same day the e-mail was received from SPINIT, NICLAS contacted MRS. JOHNSON via phone, explaining that her offense to the previous phone conversation was misunderstood, and should not interfere with their ability to work collaboratively and complete the desired outcome. SPINIT agreed, and planned to meet with NICLAS in person within the next couple of days. Over the course of the next couple of months, SPINIT and NICLAS continued to have contact, via e-mail, in which MRS. JOHNSON insisted and promised that she would be finished with the project as soon as possible.

On December 1st 2014, MRS. JOHNSON contacted NICLAS via e-mail, apologizing for the failure to complete website design in a timely manner, claiming she had incurred a recent physical injury, thus being cause for such a delay. NICLAS continued to display good faith and patience, and agreed to wait for the delivery of the websites final design and ultimate completion. Over the course of the next couple of weeks, SPINIT and NICLAS continued to have e-mail conversations regarding specific details to the websites current provider, and the means of how they could work together to insure the same provider was utilized for the new website design. During the course of these communications, SPINIT requested that prior to the final upload and delivery of the websites design to NICLAS, that she receives the final payment of $1,450.00 USD. NICLAS provided SPINIT with the full and final payment for the website design, in the amount of $1,450 USD, totaling $2,750.00 USD; thus satisfying NICLAS’s terms of performance for the contract. This final payment was made in good faith, with the intention that NICLAS would finally receive the long overdue websites final design. However, no final website design has been received to this day, nor has there been any time frame provided by SPINIT to establish the websites estimated completion time.

Additionally, while MRS. JOHNSON has continued to leave the terms of her contract unfulfilled, she has not failed to receive and cash, the fully paid amounts of the contracts stated price. While it is reasonable to assume that most creative and artistic processes take time, requiring collaboration on the part of both parties. It is not reasonable to assume that this period of time should remain ongoing, leaving one party’s terms of the contract unfulfilled, while the other party has theirs fulfilled. It is even more unreasonable to assume, that the time required for a party to receive fulfillment of their portion of a contract, to remain ongoing, and continually postponed due to whatever circumstance the providing party may invent. Timely performance is just as critical to the lawful completion of a contract, as is the delivery of both parties agreed upon items of consideration, pursuant to the contract terms.

As it stands currently, pursuant to the terms of the existing contract between SPINIT and NICLAS, SPINIT has failed to provide a finished and functional website design to the plaintiff, while SPINIT, has received full payment for such a website. Prior to the creation of this formal complaint, NICLAS provided SPINIT with a deadline of one (1) week, to provide NICLAS with the final website design. No attempt of contact has been made by SPINIT to respond or dispute this deadline, and the completion of the website remains incomplete, and the terms of the contract remain breached.

Following the filing of this formal complaint, the plaintiff will consult the help of an attorney to seek damages for the fully paid amount of the websites design, in addition to damages incurred for the estimated loss of business, which was to be received from the new website. The final deadline provided to Ieva, was for December 30th, 2014. Following the expiration of this deadline, every day the website remains incomplete will result in the accrual of the estimated amount of damages resulting from loss of business, in addition to the fully paid amount of the websites design price of $2,750.00 USD. Furthermore, NICLAS will pursue all other consumer resources readily available, to make such a breach of contract by SPINIT made public information, as a means to warn and educate other consumers of the wrong doing.


Niclas H.

View full review
Reason of review:
Problem with delivery

Preferred solution: Full refund

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article