Model Refund or Revision: Solving Transaction Advisory Issues

Role: Director

Industry: Finance

Situation:

Hello, My organisation is a 4 person small consulting firm that assiss with transction advisory I purchased a model for 150 USD on Flevy and it did not have development costs as per the description, so I cannot use it and that is false advertising Can the owner of the model revise it to match the description because we are in south africa and 150 usd is a lot of money for us to spend on a model that we cannot use due to it missing an important component

Question to Marcus:

“

Can I get a refund on the model or alternatively can the owner include development costs in it then send it to me?

Financial Modeling

In buying a pre-built model, the immediate finance priority is determining whether the asset is fit for purpose and how to account for the loss or remediation cost. First, document the gap: save the product page, timestamps, screenshots, and the delivered files showing the missing development-cost line items.

Ask the seller for a written acknowledgement of the discrepancy and a revised deliverable (or refund). If the seller revises the model, insist on a changelog and a signed acceptance test that verifies development costs are present and calculated consistent with your project needs. If they refuse, escalate through the marketplace (Flevy) and your payment provider for a chargeback. From an accounting perspective, if the model is unusable and no refund is forthcoming, treat the purchase as an impaired intangible/expense: write it off to cost of goods sold or operating expense in the period, or capitalise only if remediation creates a usable, demonstrable asset. Capture remediation costs (seller revision or internal development) as a separate line so you can analyze ROI on purchased templates versus in-house development for future budgeting and capitalisation decisions.

Costing

A clear costing exercise will determine whether it’s worth pursuing a revision or taking a refund. Quantify the total landed cost: purchase price (USD150), FX conversion and bank fees, local taxes, time to remediate (internal or external developer hours), and opportunity cost of delay on client engagements.

Build a simple break-even: how much additional revenue or time-savings must the corrected model deliver to justify remediation spend. Include sensitivity for exchange-rate volatility (USD/ZAR) and the high marginal cost of small-dollar international purchases in South Africa. If remediation requires developer time, estimate hourly rates locally (freelancers vs in-house), task hours to add development costs, and compare to negotiating a partial refund. Use this costing to set an acceptable negotiation target (for example, request a full refund if remediation cost exceeds 40% of total project value, or accept a revised file at no extra cost if remediation is under your internal hourly threshold). Document these thresholds in procurement rules to avoid ad-hoc purchases that erode margins.

Vendor Management

Treat the model seller as a vendor; apply basic vendor-management protocols to secure a resolution and protect future purchases. Immediately create a vendor file containing the product page, transaction record, communications, and acceptance criteria.

Score the vendor on delivery accuracy, responsiveness, and revision willingness — this will guide repeat-use decisions. For remediation negotiations, request an SLA for the revised deliverable (delivery timeframe, acceptance criteria, and penalties such as partial refund if missed). If negotiations succeed, require the seller to update the marketplace listing to prevent recurrence. If the vendor declines, escalate publicly via the platform review mechanism and privately via payment dispute channels; many marketplaces react faster when reputational risk is highlighted. Finally, add the seller to a watchlist and only repurchase after a successful test or positive marketplace update. Use a simple vendor scorecard to track outcomes and feed procurement policy.

Procurement Negotiations

Approach negotiation with a clear BATNA and documented evidence. Your BATNA options: chargeback via card issuer, platform dispute, request partial refund, or hire local developer to add the missing component.

Start with a polite but firm written request outlining the discrepancy, required correction (exact format and line items for development costs), and a deadline (48–72 hours). Offer a compromise to expedite resolution: allow the seller 1) to revise at no extra cost, or 2) to refund fully if they cannot comply. If seller resists, escalate to Flevy support and the payment processor simultaneously — include screenshots and the deliverable. Use the marketplace’s standards and seller rating as leverage; mention willingness to leave a factual review if unresolved. If you accept a paid revision, negotiate staged acceptance and withhold final release of payment until the updated model passes your acceptance test. Record the negotiation outcome in your procurement ledger.

Due Diligence

This purchase exposes a gap in pre-purchase due diligence for small-dollar digital tools. Implement a lightweight checklist for future buys: verify scope (are development costs explicitly included?), preview sample outputs, confirm file formats and editability, check licensing (can you modify the file?), and read seller policy on refunds/revisions.

For cross-border purchases, verify currency, potential VAT/GST implications, and marketplace dispute channels. Post-purchase, perform an immediate acceptance test within 24–48 hours — if deliverables don’t match description, start the dispute process immediately to preserve chargeback windows. For higher-value templates, require a short technical review by the team or a sandbox demonstration before purchase. Capture lessons from this incident in a one-page “digital procurement” protocol and circulate to partners to prevent repeat losses and to speed resolution when problems occur.

Accounts Payable

The transaction should be managed through AP controls to preserve options for recovery. Ensure the payment is traceable (card/PayPal/other) and retain transaction IDs, statements showing the USD conversion, and timestamped communications.

If a refund is issued, route it through the same AP entry to avoid reconciliation errors — don’t prematurely clear the expense. If you pursue a chargeback, log an AP suspense item and avoid booking the expense until the dispute concludes. If remediation is agreed, invoice any seller credit and match it against the original expense for accurate P&L treatment. For internal controls, set an approval threshold (e.g., any international marketplace purchase over ZAR-equivalent of $50 requires partner sign-off) and require purchase justification in the expense system. These steps protect cash flow and ensure accurate month-end reporting while disputes are outstanding.

Risk Management

Quantify and mitigate financial and operational risks from buying digital templates. Financial risks: wasted spend, FX and transaction fees, and potential write-offs.

Operational risks: lost billable hours while remediating or rebuilding. Mitigation actions: immediate evidence collection, platform dispute initiation, and contingency budgeting for small remediation costs. For future prevention, require trial/demo, clearer acceptance criteria in listings, and preferred-vendor lists. Consider a small insurance buffer or contingency account within operating expenses for “digital tool failures” if your firm frequently buys external templates. Maintain a risk register entry for supplier-delivered digital goods with risk scoring and mitigation steps; escalate higher-scored items to partner review. If the seller’s conduct suggests misrepresentation or fraud, consult legal counsel but prioritize low-cost financial remedies (chargeback, platform resolution) over litigation given the ticket size.

Small Business

As a four-person firm with tight budgets, prioritize pragmatic, low-cost resolutions. First, pursue a full refund or a corrected model through the marketplace — these are often the quickest and cheapest outcomes.

If the seller offers a paid revision, evaluate local freelance rates for the same change; frequently small SA-based developers will implement a missing line item more cheaply than paying the seller or bringing in international talent. Treat this event as a policy inflection point: introduce a simple procurement approval flow for template purchases, require documentation of supplier deliverables, and build a small testing protocol. Also consider pooling templates into a shared internal library that you vet once, then reuse, spreading the one-time cost across multiple engagements. Finally, track these micro-losses in monthly P&L to spot patterns and set a threshold for in-house development versus marketplace purchases.