We do not get many returns at all, so this happening in the way it did was a big surprise.

From our records, here is how this transpired:

(Yes, this is long and detailed to the extent that no misunderstanding/misdirection/fragmentation may creep in on a topic of Significantly Not As Described)

Three months ago you purchased a customized Police Box refrigerator kit consisting of one front, one side and their respective roof/sign structures for a two-door, top freezer refrigerator.

You sent photographs with dimensions when requested. The photography was less than satisfactory, the method being clearly specified on the web page and in our instructions (need a face-on, undistorted image). Not having the face-on front view to check against, we operated on only one set of data and figured it out. The panels were produced according to your dimensions and they and the roof/sign sections were shipped to you.

You applied the skins and sent an email stating that the top door panel was "too short", there was a white strip showing "on one side", and demanded a replacement. However, you also confirmed that the image area DID match the 22" vertical you specified.

It took a while to figure out what you were talking about, as two+ inches of extra width was provided on each side in order to accommodate not only the deep barrel shape of the door (a difficult to quantify unknown), but to also be able to wrap around the sides and onto the back edge of the door to ensure stability. How could it be "too short" leaving a white strip "on one side"?

After some deliberation, we finally deciphered that what you really meant was that there was not a wrap of the image on the top and bottom edges; not "side" as you stated. (You sent a subsequent image that confirmed our conclusion.)

We did not opt for this approach on this door. Because of the large barrel shape of the door, and the oddly large vertical gap between them having curved openings for handles, etc., the panel image was printed according to your dimensions. It would presumably be applied to the front cylindrically shaped surface, then the white perimeter would be trimmed away; thereby eliminating wrinkling along the top and bottom edges because the doors are so curved. This made perfect sense. The lower door is longer and its printed panel is more susceptible to size change (see below), so it was supplied with extra image area to be trimmed off the bottom after application.

We consider this foresight to have been a Good Thing.

With what we were given, we did our best to work around that to arrive at a successful outcome.

That the instructions, both on the website and supplied in the box, state that the skin is removable and re-positionable, you chose to complain and make demands, instead of being open-minded, creative and simply making an adjustment to arrive at a homogeneous solution that would look great; and have it almost immediately. As was stated in a reply to you, it is very difficult to make something to fit an object that you have no access to and cannot directly see or touch. Some amount of on-site ingenuity is necessary in order to fine tune things. As stated on the web page:
"Some assembly required."

In our considered estimation, it being a black refrigerator and the skin being a vivid blue, all that really needed doing was applying the panel straight and then trimming off the white perimeter. The white perimeter on all panels is there to protect the image area from damage during shipping. This is a Good Thing. Further, from the photographs you sent it can readily be seen that the top of the image on the original panel coincides with the top of the door (cannot see exactly, perhaps it was just a bit high) but the white perimeter did still wrap at the bottom edge. It just didn't do as you expected or wanted to entertain and address.

Perhaps, after seeing it, you wanted the panel to cover more than you had specified? Well, you had already confirmed the image to have been the correct size. Perhaps you measured it incorrectly. But, you didn't consider that or ask for pointers and solutions in a positive manner, instead, just demanded a replacement, which we granted.

All of this could have been avoided by your holding the panel up and determining, before removing the backing and applying it, if it were the correct size and just exactly where to best position it. This would protect your ability to return an item if found to be wholly unsatisfactory.

You further complained that the side panel was too long, requiring you to trim it! You didn't give us a height measurement for that panel. They are supplied a little long to ensure that over that longer distance there is sufficient material to cover just about any case that may exist on a particular refrigerator. We cannot be expected to test each and every one somehow and provide a to-size trim; especially on a very large dimension. Do you know how many refrigerator models there are?

Temperature variances alone will cause a large sheet to grow or shrink. There is no getting around this fact of physics. Side panels are most often longer than the front. You supplied the combined dimension of the two doors in the front, but did not supply any vertical dimension on the side, only its depth, so extra was simply supplied for you, to ensure that it would fit, no matter what.

This, again, is a Good Thing. A solution that is sure to be successful. No big deal and, yet, you were miffed that you had to do a little fitting work.

To sum up, on the panel that was supplied to-size, you complained.
On the panels that were supplied with overage, you complained.

That said, we elected to be magnanimous about it and printed a second top door panel and sent it to you to resolve this; totally at our expense. This time, extra image along the top and bottom edges (in addition to that on the sides) were provided, so that you could do whatever you liked in whatever manner you pleased and just trim off the excess; which you dislike doing but it's better than risking another hideous uncovered section on one edge again.

We never heard one solitary word from you and concluded that the issue had been resolved and that you were satisfied.

On July 24, from out of the blue, four and a half weeks after the fact--with zero further communications in between, you posted an inflammatory, provoking message on our public Facebook page:
"I bought a fridge kit from you. I suppose that if I have to have one overpriced piece of rubbish purchase in my life, this is it."

We responded: "Thank you for your support!" and it all went downhill from there, with you progressively going ballistic in the midst of it, eventually and inexplicably announcing that the replacement panel is the wrong color! Ummmm... IF that were the case, why was this not even remotely mentioned in your first post? Further... why, if it was an actual issue, did you fail to contact us in all that time about the matter? You were directly asked that very question in the thread by a person who has a fridge kit, so speaks from experience, and you declined to answer.

Then your wife popped up, chiming in with:
"When the instructions call for the use of packing tape, you know you're not getting a quality product for your $400."
...and then called it:
"just a sticker".

First: Packing tape is all that is required to do the job at hand. We could certainly ship the upper hard surface roof all folded up and assembled, but that adds tremendously to the shipping cost. So, it is shipped flat; scored for easy assembly. And we are fairly certain that everyone has packing tape at hand in order to easily fold and assemble the roof in under two minutes. An elegant solution, but it was chosen to be spun as derogatory.

Further, the price is NOT $400, but only $270 plus ground shipping.

Second: We would definitely be interested in learning just what, exactly, you did expect. A Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote paintbrush that applies a detailed geometric pattern as you swipe back and forth? Maybe a big button that you press when you open the box and it installs itself? Of course it's a sticker; a really big one. Says as much in the description:

"The skin is easy to apply. It is re-positionable, washable and removable."

...among other clues, and the instruction sheet definitely describes the materials:

"Enclosed, you should find rolled adhesive prints for your fridge..."


"1. Test Adhesive - play with it, peel it, see how much abuse it can take so you'll know how to take care of your fridge skin. You'll want to peel and stick just a few inches at a time..."

What else could it be? Perhaps you expected that it would actually make your refrigerator bigger on the inside?

Then sputtering in your own thread ensued, with you pasting in random chunks of earlier communications in a disorganized stream in an attempt to gain some advantage, perhaps by sheer confusion. In order to bully us, you stated in part:

"Obviously, you changed the ink cartridge and the color doesn't match."

While there may be factors that influence the print when a job is run at vastly different times, instead of all in one go, this isn't one of them, so your conclusion is wholly unfounded. You have all of the parts, so there is zero opportunity for us to make any comparison while doing a print run.

This was becoming belligerent and increasingly untenable.

In your original complaint email you stated:
"I must admit I was a little disappointed."
"Overall this was not what I was expect[ing] for over $300."
(includes shipping, here, the product purchased is less than $300)

It says very clearly right on the web page and on the receipt:
"Please write me if you have questions."
Why did you not?

Growing weary of it, we asked if you would like us to print that panel a third time. Instead, you dismissively stated that the issue would be taken up in a PayPal Dispute that you had already fired off in the background without notice and refused to answer the direct question or acknowledge the offer at all; stating that you would not be following the thread and to only contact you through PayPal.

Only a few short hours later, however, you did exactly what you said you were not going to do, went back in and deleted the entire thread! replacing it with a version of your last post, which is the content of your dispute to PayPal, with one additional line that tells the whole story of that thread:
"I will not be following this post so, people who are employees affiliates or just boosters of this company have fun."

And then suddenly your and your wife's Facebook pages went almost completely blank! Why would that be? Could it be the string of complaints about other companies, products and services that you disliked in one way or another and didn't feel you got your due?

So, here we are... However, you are demanding 56% of the purchase price to be refunded for a single panel that is performing its function; but (as you claim) is slightly darker than the panel below it. Not what I would call a remotely fair demand. 25% is too much; just taking the surface area alone into account, which is only ~12.5%!

That the replacement panel IS installed, DOES fit and IS performing its function lowers your refund demand to an even lesser amount. In light of the relative surface area facts as they relate to your demanded refund on something that you get to keep, 5% seems high, so you could possibly get $13.50 out of this. But, no, you demand a $150 refund on a $270 purchase, no part of which you can return in the condition in which it was received.

But, there is a far more basic issue!

A critical link in the chain to a successful solution is missing; especially this last time where history repeats itself.

The real situation is that when the replacement part arrived, it was up to YOU to assess whether it was a good part or not. You are the only person who is on-site with all of the parts at hand at the same time that can make a determination whether it is acceptable or not:

A. Does it fit the newly requested requirements as far as size?
B. Is it the correct image or that of a red Telephone Box? (it IS the correct design or pattern, because it IS the correct portion of a Police Box)
C. If the image is correct, is there any other aspect of it that does or does not match the existing prints that it will be paired with?

If the color variance really was "a much darker hue of blue", and you were making even a cursory examination, you would have noticed it right then and there. This is to say that you would have been extra critical of something new replacing something that had previously been found to have been lacking, no? I mean, it's just common sense and we didn't think it necessary to have to prompt you.

Any of A, B or C wrong? You would have called and put it back in the tube to send it right back to us.

Instead, you forged blindly ahead and modified the part (this time, too) and then are attempting to make us PAY A FINE after the fact for your shirking your earlier responsibilities in the matter; the performance of which could have avoided the whole issue.

There seems to be a pattern, here.

You failed to perform your responsibility in assessing the above points at this critical stage before doing anything further with it, and you are the only one who can do it. We cannot do this step for you. This stage of the exchange is your responsibility and yours alone. We were relying upon YOU to say yes or no.

You said nothing... until 4.5 weeks after the fact in the middle of a blind-siding, abusive public rant. This raises many valid questions.

It's the same as ordering a New York Strip steak in a fine restaurant, eating all but the last 12.5% of it and then telling the chef that you will only pay 44% of the bill because the last portion was just a bit too well done and you didn't notice it when you started to eat; take it or leave it.
~ OR ~
Walking into an auto store, buying an item, taking it out to your car and installing it--scratching it in the process, then going back in and demanding that the manager pay you for the damage; but you get to keep and use the item.

In a shop, the standard precept is:
"You broke it, You bought it."
In this case, the precept is:
"You modified it without inspecting (again), You bought it."

Had you made a proper and thorough comparison to certify the acceptability and, if not acceptable, contacted us in a friendly manner and sent the print back in its original condition, we could have honored the error and printed yet another for you, again at our expense.

Instead, the print is unusable by us on another refrigerator, so is a loss of an asset that we still have an investment in.

Because you are unable to return it in the condition that it was received and get another that does match, we are out the cost of producing and shipping it. This really doesn't seem remotely fair, now does it?

As to the Significantly Not As Described assertion, the not getting a quality product for the money assertion, not to mention whether your dispute even qualifies as SNAD:

For a custom-made product, produced to specification, we feel that it is a good value, especially in light of the amount of time and care it takes to create one. The over One Hundred other clients who have them in their kitchens; offering glowing reports and excitedly posting on forums about them -- photos and all, eleven of which may be seen on the web page (which look almost exactly like the photos YOU sent) -- would agree to that and that it met their expectations and more. I'm sure that they would testify that the kit resides solidly in the category:

~ NOT Significantly Not As Described ~

OR, to put it more succinctly:

~ Definitely Is As Described ~ because the description is extensive, true and verified, with many photo exhibitions. You encountered some of the verifiers in the less than pleasant thread you deleted.

No business likes to have unhappy customers. We have tried to be fair about this, even offering a third print, but anyone learning the whole of the situation would say that the approach that you have taken could have been handled better... on many levels.

There is a possible path to a solution, but we will wait to see your response, and tone thereof, before proceeding further.

UPDATE: We see that you have impatiently pulled the trigger, escalating to a Claim before giving us a chance to respond. (From the length of our response, anyone can see why it has taken a bit of time to be sure that it has been composed clearly.) Therefore, we consider your above action to be uncooperative and the possible solution is withdrawn; that being STILL offering to print a THIRD panel (which you effectively refused).

Thank you for making my point about how things could have been better handled.