Quote from: IMET on June 16, 2014, 09:47:32 PM

Quote from: IMET on June 16, 2014, 09:37:08 PM

Quote from: YourPalToots on June 16, 2014, 08:51:39 PM

Quote from: IMET on June 16, 2014, 06:48:25 PM

Quote from: YourPalToots on June 16, 2014, 05:39:56 PM

Quote from: IMET on June 16, 2014, 04:55:50 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on June 16, 2014, 04:32:06 PM

Quote from: IMET on June 16, 2014, 03:37:29 PM

They all can't be bad. AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online. I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done. They are not interested. PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free. This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective. Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.

So let me get this straight. You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer? How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fiduciary duty.

We would have looked into fixing boards if AMT was willing to pay for this work. The problems occurred are not due to PCB assembly. Because the problems are not due to PCB assembly, this work is out of scope for IMET and we would need to be compensated.

So what you are saying is, you put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat but only because that was the design that was giving to you. Looking back at it, we know the car has very well made parts and the parts are installed very well but they are installed in the wrong place.

Not quite. We built to print and ONLY the PCBs. I think this is the point that is being missed here. We did verify that the PCBs worked before going into production. We delivered good product to AMT, but it was only the PCBs. The rest of the work was done by AMT so if they put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat, I had no control and it is out of scope for IMET to correct these problems.

No I get the point. You only built the design that you were giving, except the design was incorrect.

And you know how to change the current design to make it correct except you need to get paid for it.

Getting close. We only built the PCBs and AMT did everything else. I don't see anything wrong with the PCBs. The problem lies in the work that AMT did, and I do have a solution to fix this problem. Respectfully, I would give AMT the info if they paid their bill for services rendered.

aka, I know how to fix the pieces of the design that AMT was responsible for that didn't work and I'd be willing to give that info gratis if we were paid for the work that was done in the past. Essentially, the amount of the bad check that was submitted.

Outta fear of you disclosing too much info, is it safe to say that you, IMET, are pursuing normal legal channels to have said insufficiently funded submitted check from Joshua Zipkin of AMT honored?