A woman sued a dating website and won because she didn't meet the wealthy man of her dreams

A divorced UK woman who is on the hunt for a rich boyfriend has won £13,100 in damages from an elite dating agency because she did not find what she was looking for: “possibly the man of my dreams, the father of my child”.

Tereza Burki sued Seventy Thirty, based in the upmarket Knightsbridge area in London, for deceit and misrepresentation, The Guardian reported. On Wednesday, the high court ruled the company had misled the woman about its “exclusive” membership.

Judge Richard Parkes QC said: ‘Gertrude Stein quipped that whoever said money can’t buy happiness didn’t know where to shop. 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.’

According to The Guardian report, Burki, a mother of three and businesswoman, enlisted the help of the dating service in 2013 in pursuit of a new partner. ‘Her requirements were not modest,’ the judge admitted.

That is an understatement. Burki wanted a 'sophisticated gentleman', ideally employed in the finance industry. It was important that he should lead a 'wealthy lifestyle' and be 'open to travelling internationally'.

The most important credential this suitor needed to have, however, was a willingness to have more children because she had always wanted four. Burki signed up to Seventy Thirty and paid £12,600.

The judge said the agency’s former managing director, Lemarc Thomas, claimed there was a substantial number of wealthy male members who were a sufficient match for Burki’s desires, The Guardian reported.

The judge argued that this was false and misleading. There were only around 100 active male members using the service and that could not ‘by any stretch of the imagination’ be described as a substantial number.

‘Had Ms Burki known what the true size of the active membership was, she would not have joined Seventy Thirty,’ he said. She was induced to enter her contract with the agency by the false representations given by Thomas, who must have known he was giving her a false impression, he added, according to The Guardian.

Burki sought the return of her membership fee and damages for distress. The agency counter-sued her for libel and malicious falsehood in connection with two online reviews she wrote.

Burki was awarded £12,600 damages for deceit and £500 for distress. The judge also awarded Seventy Thirty £5,000 for libel relating to an April 2016 Google review by Burki.

Susie Ambrose, the founder and company director of Seventy Thirty, said Burki had joined with the ‘lofty and unrealistic’ expectations of how many men she would be introduced to through the agency.

‘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.

She added: ‘By her own admission in court, Ms Burki never read the terms and conditions … Ms Burki was found to have libelled Seventy Thirty, as the judge said that we had sourced excellent matches for her. Therefore, her remarks about us being a non-reputable and fraudulent company were deemed untrue and entirely without foundation.’

Via The Guardian.