A man who paid a matchmaking service to find him a wife but only met one woman who fit his “criteria” is entitled to a partial refund, a B.C. tribunal has ruled. The man paid Julia’s Introduction Service Ltd. $2,000 in March 2024 and was introduced to four women over the course of five months, a decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal posted online Tuesday said. He said he paid the service to “find him a spouse” but was only introduced to one woman who met his “preliminary criteria,” according to the decision, which noted he was seeking a $1,500 refund. The matchmaking service said the $2,000 payment was for a lifetime membership “until (he) successfully marries,” and that it does not offer refunds to its clients. The man and the service did not have a written contract, so the evidence tribunal member Amanda Binnie considered consisted mainly of text messages. Roughly two months after the man made his payment, he sent a message to the service saying he was “disappointed” with the women he had met and did not think the service had “enough enrollment” of potential matches. He also requested a 50 per cent refund, according to the decision. The man requested a refund again two months after that, and the service responded by telling him, “they had already done work for (him) and that they had another eligible candidate for him,” the decision continued. One month later, the man asked for a receipt from the service and was provided with one stamped with the words “‘no refunds,” which triggered his filing of the claim with the tribunal. Full refund would be ‘unjust’ In order to settle the dispute, the tribunal had to establish the nature of the contract to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under B.C.’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Binnie found the agreement was a future performance contract, which refers to an agreement in which goods or services are not “fully provided” when the contract is made. “(Julia’s Introduction Service Ltd.) agreed to provide its services over an indeterminate time, until (the man) successfully married. This means the services were not fully provided when the contract was entered into,” the decision said. These contracts require a supplier to provide a consumer with a written contract containing detailed information, including terms and conditions, within 15 days of the agreement. Because this was not done in this case, Binnie said the legislation entitled the man to a full refund if he cancelled the contract within a year—unless a full refund would be “unjust in the circumstances.” The decision said, by way of background, that the man had previously used the service and found a spouse, but “that relationship was ultimately unsuccessful.” But no information was provided about how long it took for the man to find his previous wife, or how long it takes, generally, for the service to make a successful match, according to the decision. “Given the subjective nature of choosing a spouse, I find it could reasonably take up to one or two years, possibly longer,” Binnie wrote. Given the man had been introduced to four women, and given he never demanded a full refund, the tribunal found there was “some evidence of the value he received.” Noting that the man initially asked for a 50 per cent refund and later asked for a 75 per cent refund, Binnie decided to split the difference and ordered the service to pay him $1,260—equivalent to 63 per cent. “I find it would be unjust in the circumstances for (him) to receive a full refund,” Binnie wrote. The service was also ordered to pay the man $63.17 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in tribunal fees, bringing the total to $1,448.17. RELATED STORIES:
