QOLOS, Inc. v. The Barbie Market

In scope — SOW §4

• Menu
• Setup Categories
• Checkout / Registration
• Buyer/Seller fee split (2.9% + $0.30, 10%)
• Product Detail Page
• Home Page
• Most Recent Products on Home
• Reviews only by buyers
• Update Testimonials
• Product List Page
• Testing
• Documentation / Testing for delivery
• Site down after WooCommerce update

All shown working in the June 27 video walkthrough.

Added after the SOW — not in §4

• Reviews for seller, not product
• Seller accept / decline returns option
• Update Primary Color (rebrand)
• Update Favicon (rebrand)
• Replace Footer Logo (rebrand)
• Doll Wall
• Shop Merchandise
• Change Categories on Home
• Change Categories on Product List
• FAQ Page
• Terms & Conditions Page
• Privacy Policy Page
• Change Left Menu Categories
• Submit Offer on Product Page
• Remove Out-of-Stock Products
• Domain changed – fix images/links
• Change “Brand” category to “Dolls”

Requested after signing; billed under the time & material terms (§6.1).

“You are not even close to finishing the website.”

Record: June 27 video shows a complete, working marketplace across buyer, seller and admin views, two weeks before the July 10 completion date.

“You did not tell me it would cost me more money.”

Record: In the recorded April 4 meeting Chad said anything out of scope “is going to start to cost you extra at the end of the project.” On June 6 he sent the hours report showing 15 hours left. In January he explained $10K vs. $50K+.

“I requested the Doll Wall from the beginning.”

Record: It's not in SOW §4. It was first discussed April 4 as “something we didn't think about.” On June 26 she wrote: “since I added Doll Wall.”

“You did not really do the logos.”

Record: Logos were never in the contract. Chad, April 4: “A logo is not in the contract but happy to help out with it.”

“I didn't know what it costed.”

Record: In January she negotiated the $10K option against a $50K+ option and worked out the $66.66/hour rate herself.

“You asked me to sign an NDA before releasing the work.”

Record: The NDA offer was made in exchange for the balance; it was rescinded July 1. The work itself was always on the client's own servers — “handover” refers to transferring IP ownership, which passes only upon final payment.

“I have no site.”

Record: All development was done on the client's own servers; she has had the complete, working website the entire time. Only the transfer of IP ownership awaits final payment.

Exhibit I-1 · May 11, 2026 · 0:43 · Source -6

Direct contact and attorney representation

“I've never received a letter of representation from your attorney, so that's why I'm contacting you.”

Context rather than an adverse admission: she explains direct contact, apologizes, and offers to contact counsel. This does not prove improper contact or wrongdoing.

Exhibit I-2 · May 11, 2026 · 1:47 · Source -7

Refund demand paired with hardball language

“I could literally destroy you. I don't want to do that.”

Also says “I just want the $10,000 back” and “Again, if not, I will play hardball.” Potentially supports refund leverage rather than a neutral complaint. Read with her desire to resolve the dispute; the language does not establish knowing falsity, extortion, or a threat of physical harm.

Exhibit I-3 · May 11, 2026 · 3:00 · Source -8

Refund deadline linked to audience and reputational pressure

“I am going to tell everybody the truth about you.”

After demanding $10,000 by the end of the week, she mentions followers and people trusting her; later says “I will literally destroy you.” Potential evidence of intended reputational pressure to obtain a refund. She expressly denies falsehood and says she is not trying to threaten him; preserve that context. Does not prove any actual publication or knowing falsity.

Exhibit I-4 · May 11, 2026 · 3:00 · Source -9

Explicit refund ultimatum and planned public accusations

“I'm also going to be reporting the truth to every social media and every person in Green Bay, Wisconsin”

This follows her demand for $10,000 by the end of the week and threatened litigation. Potential evidence that publicity was tied to payment. Her assertion that QOLOS used other people to do the work also recognizes work existed, but does not prove completion. She calls statements true to the best of her knowledge; verify any public repetition, falsity, and damages separately (F-1–F-3, G-2–G-4, G-9).

Exhibit I-5 · May 11, 2026 · 3:00 · Source -10

Express plan to repeat prior publicity if unpaid

“If I do not receive it by a certain day, I will go to the public first.”

Also says “I'll do exactly what I did last time” and “I know how to play the game, so don't screw with me.” Potentially links planned repeat publicity to a refund and acknowledges prior activity; compare with the 2024 posts and June 26 messages. It does not identify every earlier post or admit falsehood. She again asserts truth to the best of her knowledge and offers to settle for $10,000.

Exhibit I-6 · May 11, 2026 · 3:00 · Source -11

Website, work, and contractual labor rates acknowledged

“labor rates, which were in the contract, I agree. But the contract”

This is the clearest potential acknowledgment that labor rates were in the contract, but the sentence cuts off: it is not agreement to $95/hr, every invoice, or contract enforceability. She also says “take the website, and freaking eat it. It's crap” and “You had somebody else working on it.” Those statements may undermine a literal claim that no website or work existed, not prove satisfactory completion. Her “I'm not going to run your name through Facebook” assurance contrasts with the publicity threats in I-3–I-5; same-day call order is unknown, so no later reversal can be inferred.

Exhibit I-7 · May 11, 2026 · 2:41 · Source -12

Quality complaint contrasted with claim of nothing delivered

“I don't give two shits about the website. I mean, it was a piece of junk.”

She evaluates a website but also says “I basically paid you $10,000 and you gave me nothing.” Potential inconsistency between dissatisfaction and literal nonexistence, relevant to the later October 2026 “have no site” review (G-9). Compare with E-1/E-2 and QOLOS's account that the work was on her servers. Neither this nor the ambiguous refund/keep-website passage proves acceptance, delivery of every requirement, or a waiver of her claim.

“You are not even close to finishing website and now you are requesting more money.”

Record: Both videos show a working marketplace. The $4,250 is owed under the signed time-and-materials contract with no cap (§6.1).

“You did not tell me it would cost me more money.”

Record: Recorded April 4 warning that out-of-scope work costs extra. June 6 hours report showed 15 hours left.

“You did this same thing with Titletown Oil.”

Record: Unsupported claim about another client relationship, posted to hurt QOLOS's reputation. Named in the July 1 cease-and-desist.

“You are lying now… you did not set up a social media account.”

Record: Social media setup is not in the SOW. Calling QOLOS a liar in public is not supported by the record.

“I can't help but think this is a scam… rack up hours doing things wrong.”

Record: Every hour is logged by task and date in Jira (Exhibit D). The extra 0.83 hours were never billed.

“You asked me to sign an NDA before you will even release the work.”

Record: The NDA was offered in exchange for waiving the $4,250 balance; it was not required to release the work. The work was already on the client's own servers — handover means transferring IP ownership, which passes only upon final payment.

“I paid Chad $10,000 and have no site. (1-star Google review, Oct 2026)”

Record: The site was built and shown working in the March 27 and June 27 videos (Exhibits E-1, E-2), and it runs on the client's own servers — she has had it the entire time. The $10,000 was a retainer against hourly billing, not a fixed price (§6.1); the unpaid $4,250 balance is the remaining dispute, not a missing website.