A Web site for aspiring artists in the entertainment industry is apparently none too pleased with the results of a re-design it got from Alley interactive shop Razorfish.

Los Angeles-based IAM.com (formerly called WhyNot-U.com) has filed a breach of contract suit against the Web design firm, alleging that the site developed by Razorfish had "grave technical and navigational problems which caused severe injury to IAM.com's business."

The company is asking for a refund of "substantial sums paid to Razorfish and for other damages caused by Razorfish's failure to meet its basic obligations."

As a result of the contract dispute with Razorfish, which was hired in November of last year for the job, IAM.com said it will re-do the site "in-house" and wants Razorfish to compensate it for the cost as well.

A spokesman for Razorfish said it would not comment on pending litigation or the nature of the suit, but did say that Razorfish "stands by the quality of its work, as exemplified by its many satisfied clients," which include Charles Schwab & Co. and Nokia.

A spokesperson for IAM said the company would have no comment beyond the details in the complaint, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Thursday.

IAM hired Razorfish last November to provide a number of deliverables in connection with the development of IAM.com's Web site, including "design specification, client-side code development, client-side code integration, development of buy-side tools, a brand identity system and a laptop sales presentation."

In its complaint, the company said users with the America Online browser version 4.0 were unable to access IAM.com's site after it launched, that users had difficulty navigating the site and that Razorfish missed "virtually all of its required delivery deadlines for the deliverables."

Apparently, the terms of the contract with Razorfish required IAM.com to accept or reject Razorfish's deliverables within five business days, which IAM.com called unconscionable, "because numerous latent defects in Razorfish's work product could not be discovered in the period specified."

Despite the accusations lobbed at the company, Razorfish investors didn't seem spooked by the news. In early going during today's session shares of Razorfish were trading up by about 3% after it closed at $22.50 on Friday.

"Lawsuit, pooey!" wrote one investor on the Internet stock message board, Raging Bull. "Institutions and sharp investors turn up their nose at IAM's accusations and continue to buy."

But Matt Gould of Web investment site briefing.com, posting on a Motley Fool message board on Friday, reminded that advertising relationships -- and by extension, Web site design relationships -- are all about catering to clients, "and if the client doesn't like the campaign or product, you fix it."

"Web design is a low-margin, non-scaleable business and your assets are your people and their reputation," Gould continued. "Razorfish has been growing very rapidly, and perhaps client relations have suffered as a result of the expansion; it's a common occurrence in all service businesses. Now, we're not saying you should run for the exits on Razorfish, but this isn't a good sign."