Sexsearch dating service Wechat sex chat iran id

Similarly as to the fraud claim, the court found that Doe could not have justifiably relied on a warning on the site that "all persons within this site are 18 " because the Terms and Conditions disclaimed any warranty based on any statement on the site itself that was not also contained in the Terms and Conditions, and because Doe knew from registering for the site himself that age was indicated by a check box and required no verification by the service.

The claims for deceptive practices under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and common law duty to warn were rejected on the ground that Doe, based on the disclaimer and his own completion of the registration process, could not have been deceived by the warning that all users of the site were over 18.

Does anyone have any positive feedback on Sexsearch.com? You get messages from women, but they are all generic and they never write again after you reply. I've notified the Sexsearch site of this situation and they act as if it's the actions of individuals which "they will not tolerate." I've also found that very rarely will you receive more then one contact from their bogus women on staff.

I have received emails from people who supposedly wanted to contact me, but their profile does not fit with mine. This would require some consistency in their replies which is impossible with their non-personal canned responses. The pattern hit me about 10 days into my membership, so I drafted one letter and sent it to every woman had contacted me first, based on having viewed my profile, in theory.

If you have any questions or suggestions do not hesitate to email us at: [email protected]: Do not mail anything to this address including checks, money orders or pictures.As the opinion notes, the charges were later dismissed and the record sealed for reasons undisclosed, but Doe subsequently brought suit claiming that the service was at fault for his relationship with the minor and for the resulting harm caused by his arrest. In a relatively brief opinion, the court upheld the district court’s dismissal of each of Doe’s 14 causes of action for failure to state a claim, based in large part upon the disclaimers contained in the Terms and Conditions in the contract. A claim of breach of warranty under the Ohio UCC, also based on the warning, was rejected because the UCC applies to the sale of goods, not to services. The court also rejected Doe’s claims under the Ohio statute that prohibits "an unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction," in particular his claim that the inclusion of a term limiting damages for use of the service to the amount of the contract was unconscionable. In fact, several courts have specifically applied Section 230 to breach of contract claims.

Leave a Reply