Complaint Review: Stone on Demand - Stillwater Minnesota

Marc at Stone on Demand continues to misrepresent and lie about what took place. His track record of law suits against him and his company should speak of his character.

I moved on to another stone provider and could not be happier with the service and product. 

What many consumers who read this fail to realize is that there is always two sides to a story and often times complains occur due to lack of understanding or communication – this is no exception.  Ms. Rust (consumer) failed to mention many factors in her complaint. 

-         This complaint was written as the consumer was still conducting business with Stone on Demand.  In fact, business progressed as normal for another 8 days after this was written by the consumer. It appears that she was demanding delivery by her required due date assuming she’d get her material and this notification would not be uncovered until after delivery had arrived.  Unethical.

-          As far as we are aware, we do have the only access to this specific type of material given our quarry relationships.  The due diligence to comparison shop is the responsibility of the consumer. 

-          The labor was a suggested sub-contractor not employed by Stone on Demand.  Stone on Demand was going to do the install according to original install dates. Given that the consumer changed the install date, Stone on Demand was no longer able to provide labor, rather suggested sub-contractors and furthermore recommended and arranged for the consumer to meet them prior to any work being done.  Again, this is the consumer’s responsibility to do checks on sub-contractors, obtain work examples and references.

-          The sub-contractors were going to install all the material required, prior to the need of stone. There was absolutely no hold up in getting the job done and the sub-contractors first day+ work was not dependent on stone.  Shipments followed on a regular basis which included corners.

-          The consumer never provided paperwork for county registration.  According to Cass County (verified with Cass County on 6/22/15) this is the homeowners responsibility to provide all appropriate forms, licenses and formal paperwork for out-of-state work.

-          Consumer began making change orders just before the scheduled delivery date.  This set schedules behind adding extra production and the need to locate material that was not on the original agreement.

-          In an effort to continue making a positive end result, Stone on Demand provided at no extra charge, a large sum of material and extra stone for the job totaling not less than $1,000.

-          Consumer furthermore made her own personal, handwritten changes to the final job order and expected this would be binding without first consulting with Stone on Demand.

-          Consumer decided upon delivery of partial material that she didn’t want a portion of it (after having viewed it prior to ship) and wanted to ship it back for a full refund.  Stone on Demand agreed and it was to be shipped back no later than 6/16/15, (the agreed upon date that all final material would also be delivered) but then consumer refused to allow for pick up stating “it was not ready” and that it could not be picked up for a full week after the final delivery causing added charges on the company.  Given the material was declined, there’s no reason is should have been unpackaged and not ready for pick up.

-          Prior to final delivery that would have shipped on time, Stone on Demand requested consumer come inspect material so there would be no discrepancy after delivery.  Consumer agreed and was to draft written payment terms based on what had been verbally discussed.  The terms were based on consumers request and Stone on Demand agreed, therefore the consumer was to draft the agreement.  The terms were roughly 80% of the balance paid within 24 hours of shipment arrival and the remainder within 10 days – there is not another company that would ship $5,000 worth of material without payment or a written commitment to pay.  The only form of acknowledgment came in the form of nothing more than a few paragraphs in an email asking if the content was how Stone on Demand understood the terms – nor was this was signed by either party.  Due to the negligence by the consumer not wanting to agree in writing to discussed payment terms, it would appear there were malicious intentions. 

The consumer had been notified twice prior to days end that shipment would not leave until there was a signed agreement that would protect BOTH parties.  Consumer failed to provide so shipment did not get delivered.  One last chance was given one day after the full and final shipment was to be delivered and consumer refused.

All things considered, Stone on Demand did everything within their power (and much more, not noted) to make this a fair and successful job.  The consumer failed, not the business.