Woman Sues Phone Company Over Revelation of Affair

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8361375

If 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.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I wonder how the DUmmies would feel if this were a same-sex marriage.

[vesta111]

I wonder how the DUmmies would feel if this were a same-sex marriage.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, now that you mention it, it has been a year or so since I picked up the mail to get a bill for Hubbys cell phone.

He gets the mail at both home and Po. Box.

Will I rock the boat, no way, not my business what he does on his phone.


I am his wife not is mother, some things need to be left alone.

[Duke Nukum]

This reminds me of the guy who sued ProFlowers a few years ago because he sent flowers to his mistress and then sent him some thank you card which is wife got.  He didn't send flowers to her. 

I don't know what the outcome was but, gentlemen, if you are cheating on your wife and sending flowers to your mistress, the least you can do is send flowers to your wife at the same time.  If you can afford a mistress you can afford to be nice to your wife.

[THA HOUSTON PIMP IS IN DA HOUZ!]

This reminds me of the guy who sued ProFlowers a few years ago because he sent flowers to his mistress and then sent him some thank you card which is wife got.  He didn't send flowers to her. 

I don't know what the outcome was but, gentlemen, if you are cheating on your wife and sending flowers to your mistress, the least you can do is send flowers to your wife at the same time.  If you can afford a mistress you can afford to be nice to your wife.

and don't pay for "personal services" with a cashiers check/money order like Charlie Sheen did.  

[Duke Nukum]

and don't pay for "personal services" with a cashiers check/money order like Charlie Sheen did.  

I was thinking about this women too.  If she is indeed chattel, as the DUmmies insist, then her affairs should be for her husband's benefit.  To improve his position in life or raise his earnings.  And maybe find him a mistress while she is at it.

[thundley4]

I don't get it.  The wife was having a bill sent to their house, from a company they both did business with.  The fact she was getting a separate bill should have been a tip off to the husband.

[longview]

I finally get to ask "What's her DU name?"  LOL

Figures this hiefer wants to blame someone else for the mess she made for herself.

[formerlurker]

I don't get it.  The wife was having a bill sent to their house, from a company they both did business with.  The fact she was getting a separate bill should have been a tip off to the husband.

Yeah, clearly this couple had issues.

[miskie]

I just looked up Roger's Terms of Service. This woman has no case.

Confidentiality of Your Information
29.
Unless you provide express consent, or disclosure is required pursuant to a legal power, all information
regarding you kept by us, other than your name, address and listed telephone number, is confidential and
may not be disclosed by us to anyone other than:
•
you;
•
a person who, in our reasonable judgment, is seeking the information as your agent;
•
another telephone company, provided the information is required for the efficient and cost-effective
provision of telephone service and disclosure is made on a confidential basis, with the information
to be used only for that purpose;
•
a company involved in supplying you with telephone or telephone-directory-related services,
provided the information is required for that purpose and disclosure is made on a confidential basis,
with the information to be used only for that purpose;
•
an agent retained by us in the collection of your account or to perform other administrative
functions for us, provided the information is required for and used only for that purpose;
•
an agent retained by us to evaluate your creditworthiness, provided the information is required for
and is to be used only for that purpose;
•
a law enforcement agency whenever we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have
knowingly supplied us with false or misleading information or are otherwise involved in unlawful
activities; or
•
a public authority or agent of a public authority if, in our reasonable judgment, it appears that there
is imminent danger to life or property which could be avoided or minimized by disclosure of the
information.
05/07
Express consent to disclosure may be obtained as follows:
•
by written consent;
•
by oral confirmation verified by an independent third party;
•
by electronic confirmation through the use of a toll-free number;
•
by electronic confirmation via the Internet;
•
by oral consent, where an audio recording of the consent is retained by us; or
•
by consent through other methods, as long as an objective documented record of your consent is
created by you or by an independent third party.
Personal information collected in connection with the provision of the Services may be stored and
processed in or outside Canada and may be subject to the laws of other jurisdictions. For further
information about how your personal data is treated when using the Internet Services, see the privacy
statement at http://rogers.yahoo.com/privacy.

She agreed to these terms when she signed up. It is perfectly reasonable to send a complete bill for all services to the husband, since they are married, living at the same address, and have other services together through Rogers. Using a maiden name to hide the bill doesn't constitute any sort of separation. Although I am not Canadian, I suspect they use something similar to a Social Security number as an identifier, which would tie all services under the same identifying number together in the bundled bill.

Stupid woman should have gotten a prepaid cell for her cheatin' calls, and recharged the phone periodically by buying minutes at nearly any convenience store in the world... For this reason alone, she should lose her case. 

[Revolution]

IF there's one thing I CANNOT stand, (besides a leftist) it'd be a cheater. The reason behind this is that I have never had a real girlfriend. A few I thought were, but nothing came of it. I have never had a real relationship. If I did however, I would be crushed. So hurt, I don't even want to imagine it.

This despicable bitch has no case, and I hope she gets what she deserves.

[DefiantSix]

If there's anything my grandfather dispised - and taught me to have absolutely no tolerance for as well - they would be a liar, a cheat, and a thief. 

This woman is all three:  She lied to her husband; cheated on him, and now, after having been caught and had the gravy train rug pulled out from under her, she's attempting grand larceny by judiciary in order to replace her meal ticket.

Bullet.  Brain. 

[vesta111]

If there's anything my grandfather dispised - and taught me to have absolutely no tolerance for as well - they would be a liar, a cheat, and a thief. 

This woman is all three:  She lied to her husband; cheated on him, and now, after having been caught and had the gravy train rug pulled out from under her, she's attempting grand larceny by judiciary in order to replace her meal ticket.

Bullet.  Brain. 

Can I be the devils advocate for one minute.

Some how this sounds like a con game to me.

  First my cell bills just note the phone numbers and the time and length of the call . Unless Hubby also calls the same number of a friend and recognizes the number called 50+times how would he  unless he himself calls the number , find  out about the affair.?

Sounds like a take off on Tiger Woods problems, not too well thought out but worth a try.

There is allot of money at stake here, split 4 ways, husband, wife so called " friend " of wife, and the lawyer.

I smell 3 day old fish here.

BTW in my state it is still a crime to commit adultery.

[Freeper]

and don't pay for "personal services" with a cashiers check/money order like Charlie Sheen did.  

So did Jerry Springer when he was mayor. 

[THA HOUSTON PIMP IS IN DA HOUZ!]

So did Jerry Springer when he was mayor. 

...thinking with the wrong head.

(rimshot)

 

[ConservativeandProud]

and don't pay for "personal services" with a cashiers check/money order like Charlie Sheen did.  

Thaaaaaaaank you. XDD