My company (now out of business) ordered appox two million dollars of adhesive tapes From Budnick converting, They had supplied samples of a tape called 4965 manufactured by Tesa tapes of Germany. Budnick and Tesa both knew the application and specification and Budnicks sales manager Ron Miaskiewicz gave his "personal assurance" by email that the tape met the low outgassing specs required, Tesa/Budnick supplied samples of 4965, testing by my independant lab proved the sample was fine. I did not like the Tesa red release liner and asked for a white one (the throw away liner is not part of the finished product or part of the testing).
After approx $800,000 of tapes had been supplied from Budnick it was found that Tesa had done a Bait n Switch on the 4965 to another product that had 5000% more solvent than the Tesa 4965 that had been tested and aproved and ordered. On every delivery note, invoice and product box from Bunick its stated Tesa 4965. Budnick and Tesa refused to replace the product and in-fact sued my company for breach of contract for not taking the rest of the purchase order of the bad tape.
During the litigation our accountant reported to us that approx $100,000 dollars of the pruduct was missing, as we had all the spools of the product we should have, it was discovered that Budnick had shorted the reels of product. They were meant to be 30,000 ft spools but were infact ranging from (the ones we measured) 8-15% short, then weighing many of the other boxes we could tell that Budnick had, in our opinion stolen from us. We had put tape on over half a million dollars worth of our product that had to be scrapped as we would not knowingly give our customers bad product.
We waited a long time and spent a lot of money on lawyers in the litigation and then found out the St Loius judge had made the decisions without a trial let alone a jury one for which we had asked. The judge even said that it was ok for Budnick to short us so much product and yet charge in full because they have on their terms and condition of sale under delivery that plus or minus !0% is considered a completed order......or very simular language. So what used to be theft is now perfectly legal for Budnick. You can read Budnicks home area judges decisions on the following, https://casetext.com/case/budnick-converting-inc-v-nebula-glass-intl-inc. I am building a website with all the details of this diabolicle experience with Budnick converting and Tesa tapes and hopefully no other companies will then be scammed,stolen from and treated like we have been.
I have asked Ron Miaskiewicz , Budnicks sales manager several times on emails and Linked in if Budnick converting agrees with the judge that shorting customers product and yet charging in full is ok...........He will not answer so I believe Budick Converting do agree and are therefor thieves. Beware of Budnick converting and Tesa Tapes dishonest business practices.
Steve Howes
FT,Lauderdale,#2Author of original report
Fri, February 13, 2015
Budnick Converting is now suing myself and Mrs Howes personally, knowing they supplied us over $800,000 worth of unusable Tesa 4965 tape due to 25 times the specified solvent levels, approximatly $100,000 worth of product short on the reels and the CCT tape deliberatly sabotaged to fail in the field. For the full story read www.Budnickexperience.com.