Case Study: Gallagher V. Viking Supply Corp.

Lucy Morgan enrolled in an online dating service which, she says, promised to set young women up on dates. After using the service for a period of time, Ms. Morgan discovered several of her co-workers and others had actually been sent out on dates with the same men. She continued by stating she discovered some of the men were not only married, but related to the owner. She then concluded by accusing the owner, Mr. Paul Rambin, of fraud and misrepresentation. Mr. Rambin refuted the claims by stating he did not guarantee marriage and he did not process background checks on the members as declared on his website. Moreover, he concluded by declaring his website listed a thirty day money back guarantee for clients who were not satisfied.

My Verdict

Rambin. He clearly and thoroughly provided notification on his dating service website he did not administer background checks on potential members. Furthermore, he extended a full refund to any member which was not satisfied with the service within thirty days of enrolling.

As a guide for my ruling I applied Gallagher v. Viking Supply Corp., 411 P.2d 814 (1966) where a claim of fraud could not be proven since there was not a misrepresentation of a material fact just as in this case. Additionally, there was no intent on the behalf of the defendant to conceal the type of service which was being offered.

Judges Verdict

Paul Rambin, in this case. She proclaimed Mr. Rambin was not guilty of fraud since he clearly positioned a disclaimer on his website which stated potential members did not go through a screening process. Additionally, Mr. Rambin offered a thirty day money back guarantee if a client disliked the service