A man sues a “marriage facilitation company” for not finding a groom for his daughter

An Arab man turned to a company specialized in “matchmaker” tasks to provide a groom for his daughter, and paid the required fees amounting to 3,700 dirhams, waiting for it to do its part in return, but it did not fulfill its obligations and informed him that it would not be able to do so, and refused to return the amount he paid, so he filed a lawsuit against her, Demanding that she be obliged to pay the amount and compensate him 50 thousand dirhams as a result of the damage he suffered, the court ruled in his favor to refund the fees without compensation.

The plaintiff said in his statement of claim that the defendant company promoted that it specialized in facilitating marriage, using promotional methods that help match the right people, so he inquired about the possibility of helping his daughter in that, and received approval and paid a fee worth 3,700 dirhams, to participate in the services that it announced, and received Invoice for the amount.

He added that he waited for it to carry out the role it announced, but it refused to carry out its obligations, and he addressed those in charge more than once to find out the reason for the delay, but the company continued to procrastinate without a convincing reason, which prompted him to request a refund of the amount he had paid, but it also refused without justification.

He explained that this company’s behavior with him caused him material and moral damage, which prompted him to file the lawsuit, and he provided support for that, which was a folder of documents folded over a copy of the defendant’s offer, the payment invoice, and copies of the letters exchanged between them.

The case was considered before the competent office and the court, and the plaintiff attended, but the defendant did not attend, which prompted the court to reserve her for judgment, to serve as her presence.

The court explained in the merits of its ruling that it is stipulated, according to the Civil Transactions and Evidence Law, that the two opponents bear the burden of proof in the case according to what each of them claims, and the plaintiff must provide evidence for what he claims. If he proves his right, the defendant must provide evidence of the extinction of the debt and its cause. The court has the authority to extract the extent of each party’s indebtedness without oversight by the Court of Cassation, as long as it bases its ruling on justifiable reasons.

According to the above, the court finds that the defendant deluded the plaintiff of her ability to help him search for a husband for his wife, over a period lasting a year, but she did not do so, even though he paid her the amount and provided evidence of that, but she did not fulfill her obligation and declined to return the amount. .

The court stated that it was reassured by reviewing the invoice for paying the amount and the letters exchanged between the two parties, which indicates that he had committed to his side, while it had not committed to that, and its debt is still occupied by that amount for the benefit of the plaintiff, which requires it to be obligated to return the amount with 5% interest. From the date of claim until payment.

Regarding the material and moral compensation that the plaintiff estimates at 50 thousand dirhams, the ruling in the Court of Cassation’s ruling is that liability, whether contractual or negligent, is only achieved by the availability of three elements of error, damage, and a causal relationship linking them, so that if one of them expires, liability is extinguished.

It was clear to the court from reviewing the papers that they were devoid of evidence of the damages that befell the plaintiff, with the exception of his payment of the amount he had paid to the company, which it ruled to return to him. Therefore, the element of responsibility was extinguished, and the court must reject his request for compensation. The court obligated the company to pay the lawsuit fees and expenses.

• The court was certain that the defendant had deluded the plaintiff of her ability to help him search for a husband for his wife over a period lasting a year, but she did not.