Woman sues matchmaking agency after failing to find 'sophisticated' and 'wealthy' man of her dreams
18 August, 2018
A divorced woman seeking a wealthy boyfriend through a dating service just won about $16,700 in damages because the business failed to introduce her to the man of her dreams.
Tereza Burki, 47, sued London-based Seventy Thirty, an “exclusive international matchmaking and introduction agency” with “the ultimate network of the most eligible single people” after paying close to $16,000 to join and failing to find a suitable match with their service, The Guardian reports.
The single mother of three sought out the dating agency in 2013 with the hopes of finding a “sophisticated gentleman,” ideally employed in the financial industry who led a “wealthy lifestyle” and would be “open to travelling internationally.”
Judge Richard Parkes QC ruled that while Burki’s criteria “were not modest,” she was misled by the company into thinking there were an adequate number of men available who fit the bill, when in fact only 100 men in total were registered in Seventy Thirty’s database.
“This case is about a woman looking for romantic happiness who says she was tricked into shopping in the wrong place, paying a large sum to a dating agency which, she says, made promises but failed to produce the goods,” the judge said, per the Guardian.
With the suit, Burki sought to have her membership fee reimbursed along with damages for her distress, which the judge obliged. He also awarded Seventy Thirty $6,300 for libel based on a Google review Burki left on the company in April 2016.
Seventy Thirty’s founder, Susie Ambrose, defended the company, saying Burki had joined with “lofty and unrealistic” expectations for how many men she’d meet with their service.
“We are a niche, exclusive agency, not a mainstream, mass-market online dating service. We are not going to have thousands of members because there simply aren’t thousands of single, wealthy, high-calibre prospects out there,” Ambrose said.
“[Burki’s] remarks about us being a non-reputable and fraudulent company were deemed untrue and entirely without foundation.”
TAG(s):