Dear Besmir,
We have reviewed your feedback and, in the interest of balance, wish to clarify the situation and provide details to contest your defamatory statements.
Following the completion of our collaboration, you requested a full refund, even though you had received all deliverables and the planned tasks were fully completed.
Background. First, we note that the collaboration between your company Paydiex EOOD (Sedava.IO) and ours took place from September 7, 2023, to July 5, 2024. Each development phase was governed by a separate Service Agreement and SOW, each outlining the tasks and corresponding fees. Prior to signing, you were informed of the overall development budget as well as the payment schedule for each phase: the first phase consisted of 13 payments, and the second phase – 3 payments.
Throughout the collaboration, payments were made by you under post-completion model, and the agreements granted you the right to dispute the work or invoices or terminate the collaboration at your discretion. However, no complaints were raised during the project, and all agreements were fully performed.
Pre-litigation dispute resolution. We would like to remind you that you previously attempted to initiate chargebacks through the payment system without basis, aiming to block our operations during the dispute review. Your request was rejected because we had sufficient evidence regarding the nature of the transactions.
Subsequently, you submitted a pre-litigation claim requesting a refund with an unjustified amount of compensation. We rejected all claims, providing the following clarifications:
Invoices were sent to your email, and you personally confirmed each payment. This shows that over 1 year, you consistently made payments, accepted the work, and participated in the process, yet only after completion did you request a full refund.
No official objections or complaints were raised during the collaboration.
All source code and other deliverables were fully transferred to you.
Regarding your claim that the product was not deployed because you discontinued hosting payments, we demonstrated its functionality on our server, which proves that the obligations were fulfilled.
Your assertion that we acknowledged or accepted your claim is false. We provided full evidence supporting our position under applicable law and the jurisdiction agreed upon in the contracts.
Communication. Post-project communication continued throughout the contractual warranty period and beyond.
Your pre-litigation efforts failed due to a lack of legal grounds. However, your review contains statements amounting to defamation, compelling us to clarify the details of this case, which characterize your company Paydiex EOOD (Sedava.IO) and you as CTO of Sedava.IO as an unreliable counterparty that, after 1 year of collaboration, may request a refund without a proper legal basis and act contrary to the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium.
Despite this, we value our cooperation and wish you success.
