Woman to sue phone company after husband discovered affair through bill ! (NEW)

@oldchem1 (8132)
May 19, 2010 1:03pm CST
This was posted earlier but because of site problems was duplictaed and both were knocked off!! A Canadian woman is suing a mobile phone company after her husband discovered she was having an affair through her itemized phone bill and left her. She wants $600,000 from Rogers Wireless for 'invasion of privacy and breach of contract' She claimed that she had asked the phone company to send her bill in her name to her home, but it was instead bundled with the couple's television, Internet and home phone bill in her husband's name. What do you think about this?
2 people like this
10 responses
@kedralynn (980)
• United States
19 May 10
Ugh that's stupid. She's just angry she got caught. But look that's sort of the risk you take when having an affair. You risk getting in trouble. I hope she loses the case. Sadly in today's world, I wouldn't be surprised if she wins money or a settlement or something. Sure the phone company made a mistake and sent her bill with everything else. But really? She was being kind of needy and demanding.
1 person likes this
• United States
19 May 10
Yep tells ya that something is wrong with the system...
@oldchem1 (8132)
19 May 10
I agree, in this world though she will probably get it!!
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 May 10
I think she has no case.
1 person likes this
@oldchem1 (8132)
19 May 10
Me too! It is this claim society that I blame
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85146)
• Shingle Springs, California
19 May 10
I think she's mad that she got caught...
@cream97 (29087)
• United States
20 May 10
Hi, oldchem. That is what she gets! She shouldn't have been having an affair behind her husband's back. It serves her just right. If she wanted to be so secretive, why didn't she just rent a P.O. Box so that she can receive her private mail in. I guess some secrets can't stay hidden for too long in this situation.
@oldchem1 (8132)
20 May 10
I suppose we could call it Karma
19 May 10
Im not saying that I agree with this at all, but you never know she may actually win this case. If she can prove that she requested her bill in her name then they might have actually broken the data protection act, I dont know what its like in canada but in my job in the uk a husband is not given any access to the account unless the wife has given permission. In theory they have not followed her instructions so she may actually win, unless they advised her that it wouldnt be possible as maybe the phone, internet ect came in a package, or maybe they needed any instructions from her husband as it all seemed to be originally in his name. Really though her husband could have just looked at her phone bill anyway after it arrived to her, so she still could have been caught out.
@hvedra (1619)
20 May 10
If this is the case, technically it is correct if she asked for the bill in her name. However, she might only get the standard reparations for breaching the act (or canadian equivalent) not for the cost of the divorce etc as he could have found out some other way eventually.
@oldchem1 (8132)
19 May 10
it will be interesting to read the outcome
@Jadxia (39)
• United States
19 May 10
She may be angry she got caught, but if she gave them specific instructions on how to handle something, then she has a case. They screwed up, completely. Just because she was caught doing something wrong, does not negate the fact that the company screwed up. What if it was a woman, in the process of a divorce from an abusive husband, who asked a company to not send her bill with the main account, for fear of reprisal? Would we be ranting against her then, or would we be properly upset at the company for breaking specific instructions meant to keep her safe? Cant have it both ways. Cant expect a company to keep matters safe and protect per instruction and then forgive them for a lack of following instructions later, just because she was doing something people judge as being morally wrong.
1 person likes this
@cream97 (29087)
• United States
20 May 10
You are right about that! If an abusive husband happened to find out he wife whereabouts then she would be screwed! He could find where she lives at and come to hurt or kill her. This is then when it is totally considered the phone company's fault!
• United States
20 May 10
i think the woman is just a little angry that her extra-marital affair has been discovered. her behavior is inexcusable BUT a contract is a contract and considering that todays developed world is very litigious she has every right to sue for breach of contract... but she should know that money will not bring back her husband.
@oldchem1 (8132)
20 May 10
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this
• United States
19 May 10
I dont think phone companies should NOT get away with giving your info out to ANYONE, but here in the states husbands and wives can get access to untilities like this but it is kind of odd that the company would have bundled the bill into the cable and television when that bill is already in a different name. Well I guess she learned her lesson....... that you need a pre-pais phone if you are going to cheat. LOL
• United States
19 May 10
OOPPS my gammer on that furts sentence sux
• Philippines
20 May 10
hmm... thats weird.. but i hope they can settle it well.
@med889 (5941)
20 May 10
If she has specified that the bill should be in her name then the company has made a mistake in sending all the bills in the husband's name, this is a professional mistake and it is not a good one because it has ended up breaking a house, a couple, a family. Though the woman is cheating her husband, she has a right to claim her rights as the law itself states. The case is very interesting and as a law student I will take it a challenge to face the issues.
@kaylachan (68535)
• Daytona Beach, Florida
22 May 10
Its a common cleerical error, and she's not going to get anything out of it. That's not even worth batting an eyelash at. Sometimes, (and compnaies will tell you this) it can take a billing cycle or two to make such a correction. As I don't know complete details, I will not comment more then I have.