Implied in fact contract and dating

24 Apr

The Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal’s mistake was in assuming that a claim for damages under the UK Regulations could be viewed purely a private law claim for a breach of a domestically based statutory duty which automatically freed it from any conditions which would otherwise apply under EU law.

This would mean the claim was only subject to ordinary English law rules and so there was no requirement to show that the breach was “sufficiently serious”.

In construing this section consideration shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section 5 (a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.(1) The use or employment of any chain referral sales technique, plan, arrangement or agreement whereby the buyer is induced to purchase merchandise upon the seller's promise or representation that if buyer will furnish seller names of other prospective buyers or like or identical merchandise that seller will contact the named prospective buyers and buyer will receive a reduction in the purchase price by means of a cash rebate, commission, credit toward balance due or any other consideration, which rebate, commission, credit or other consideration is contingent upon seller's ability to sell like or identical merchandise to the named prospective buyers, is declared to be an unlawful practice within the meaning of this Act.(2) It is an unlawful practice within the meaning of this Act for any person, by himself or through others, to sell, offer to sell, or attempt to sell the right to participate in a pyramid sales scheme.

One in ten Americans have used an online dating site or mobile dating app themselves, and many people now know someone else who uses online dating or who has found a spouse or long-term partner via online dating.

General public attitudes towards online dating have become much more positive in recent years, and social networking sites are now playing a prominent role when it comes to navigating and documenting romantic relationships.

One of those conditions (and the one that mattered in this case) was that to qualify for an award of damages the breach of the Directive must be “sufficiently serious”.

In addition, and overturning the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision, the Court determined that damages for breaches of the UK procurement regulations (the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended by the 2009 Amendment Regulations to give effect to the Remedies Directive) (the “UK Regulations”) were still subject to the “Francovich” conditions and so were only available when the breach was indeed “sufficiently serious”.