He should be tall, slim and very athletic, never older than 50, and should reside in the Bavarian state capital. This is how a woman from Munich introduced herself to her “Mr. Right”. You put 7,400 euros on the table in a marriage agency. But when the man of her dreams wasn’t on offer, the client sued the love agency. An undertaking that the 29th Civil Chamber of the District Court Munich I firmly rejected.
True love or commodity love, finding the perfect person to live with and love seemingly hasn’t gotten any easier, even in the digital age. The appellant probably gained hope when she discovered the advertisement of a partner agency with exclusive claim in a trade magazine. In January 2020, an employee of the agency sat down on her sofa and in a conversation that lasted several hours she found out what the single woman wanted. For the Munich woman, appearance was important, as was her place of residence and her age.
With his appearance, his education and the environment in which he lives, “he communicates easily in a timely manner,” explained the employee of the marriage agency. Finally, the Munich resident signed the contract. For the first consultancy, 400 euros were incurred, for the mediation 7,000 euros.
Within a week, 20 partner suggestions arrived at her home, and six months later, eleven more were added. But Cupid’s arrow went awry. The woman complained that none of the suggested partners matched her needs. Her private and professional situation was absolutely not taken into consideration in the choice of partner. The announced “coordinated and selected partner search” was not recognizable. On the contrary. The profiles of the gentlemen appeared to be “entirely inadequate, inappropriate and arbitrary mediation proposals”. In July 2022, the Munich resident announced that she wanted to withdraw from the contract and that she wanted the money invested back. Alternatively, she also wanted to challenge the contract for “fraudulent statements”.
The Court does not recognize any fraudulent statements
The camera heard the plaintiff, also an employee of the agency, and then there was a lot of shaking of the head: it was not possible to withdraw from the contract, nor was there any violation of good morals or fraudulent deception. There is no obvious discrepancy between the partner’s suggestions and the payment. The agency does not owe the woman a successful placement, placing an emphasis on success.
Under the heading “So I imagine my partner,” the plaintiff provided information that is reflected in the partner proposals presented, the Chamber continued. And the criterion that the dream man should only live in and around Munich did not appear in a note or in the customer form. Conversely, the romance agent explained in court that he had told the woman she should have been more flexible in this regard, otherwise the client could not have been entered into the agency’s database because it was “too locally specific”.
The court concluded that the agency’s mediation proposals should not be considered non-compliance. “The partners’ proposals were at least not entirely useless,” the court said. According to Anne-Kristin Fricke, spokeswoman for the Munich I regional court, the ruling is not final.
