http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8361375If you feel like ****ing around, apparently DU is the place to go for advice.
Feminist are out in force:
LPanhandle (123 posts) Tue May-18-10 07:39 PM
Original message
Woman sues phone company for exposing her affair. Would you vote to give her money?
A Toronto woman says the billing practices of Rogers Wireless Inc. led to her husband discovering her extramarital affair.
Now the woman, whose husband walked out, is suing the communications giant for $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract, the results of which she says have ruined her life.
In 2007, Gabriella Nagy had a cellphone account with Rogers which sent the monthly bill to her home address in her maiden name. Her husband was the account holder for the family's cable TV service at the same address. Around June 4, 2007, he called Rogers to add internet and home phone.
The following month, Rogers mailed a “global†invoice for all of its services to the matrimonial home that included an itemized bill for Nagy's cellular service, according to the statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
When Nagy’s husband opened the Rogers invoice, he saw several hour-long phone calls to a single phone number.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/810236--t...
I wouldn't.
BrklynLiberal (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Does one usually get rewarded for being stupid AND unfaithful???
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. What has your question got to do with her business contract?
How about the marriage contract? That's why it takes court proceeding to dissolve a marriage contract: because it is legally binding.
Oh, wait, that involves a heterosexual male. It couldn't possibly be allowed to be enforced.
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. The issue is not the affair; the issue is the company's refusing to regard her as an autonomous cus-
Edited on Tue May-18-10 07:45 PM by WinkyDink
tomer, PER HER VERY OWN, NON-WIFELY-CHATTEL CONTRACT.
PERIOD.
If the gender roles were reversed I don't think this would be a complaint. Liberals never seem to complain about men being held as chattel when they want to roam free of their wives' oversight.
This is in a nutshell the essence of the gay marriage argument for the left. Marriage is 100% about mutual ownership, it cannot logically be about anything else. That is why a surviving spouse gets first dibs at a dead spouse's earthly possessions. Supposedly the right to have a spouse recognized as first heir is a prime motivator for the gay marriage advocates.
But now we learn marriage = chattel
But they don't like the idea of chattel, they just want a lifestyle legally recognized.
That means it isn't about what marriage does for them but what they can compel you to accept.
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. How did she screw up? The account was in HER name.
Surely this aggrieved wife struck a blow(-job) for the oppressed sisters everywhere.
FLPanhandle (123 posts) Tue May-18-10 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. with her and her husbands common address
The invoice was for household services.
EFerrari (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
9. The affair is beside the point. They sent her mail to someone else.
Edited on Tue May-18-10 07:49 PM by EFerrari
Yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
Obviously the wife should have told her husband not to read her mail...unless the knuckle-dragger thought he had a right to read household mail.
WinkyDink (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. Are women not allowed their own private business transactions? Suppose it was just some jewelry
she charged on her own card; why should the CC company mail the bill in her husband's name, "for efficiency"?
Why not? FAIL
catbyte (532 posts) Tue May-18-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. The problem is having the bill sent to their house.
Boneheaded move. Just because the account is in her maiden name doesn't mean diddly--especially when she has other services from the same company jointly with her spouse. Unless she specifically stated that it was a private account, she's toast. I kept my name when I got married, so our cable bill was in both names.
She was stupid--the pre-paid cell was the way to go if she wanted to be devious.
Boo freaking hoo.
uponit7771 (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. This dingbat used her home address, what did she expect?!
damntexdem (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. Yes. She had a right to the privacy of her billing.
As despicable as her marital actions were, she still had the right to not have her privacy violated by the phone company.
cbdo2007 (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
18. If they were following standard billing procedure - which it appears they were -
then they will be fine and she won't get any money.
If they purposely saw suspicious activity on the phone line and wanted to notify the husband just in case his wife may have been having an affair - then the cheater woman should win. That is invasion of privacy.
In order for the woman to win this case she would have to prove that they purposely were trying to do damage to her, and they weren't, obviously because they can't possibly watch everyone's phones to look for suspicous calls by one spouse or the other.
gratuitous (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
19. I'd award her a buck
Which is probably overpaying her for the value she placed on her own marriage, but I'm feeling extravagant today.
notadmblnd (1000+ posts) Tue May-18-10 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. Yes, her personal phone is her personal phone and they had no right
And they should have gotten her authorization before making any changes to her service. If her husband requested his cable service to provide phone service too, he should have gotten a new number.
My accounts are my accounts and no one has the right to make changes to them without my authorization. She should be able to sue for that.
Maybe she should have discussed marital expectations with her husband instead of the phone company.