jwi71 Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Actually it says nothing about adding it to the cellphone bill. Even in your quote it doesn't say that. It says he added to HIS exisiting account for the cable TV service internet and home phone. Rogers on their own added HER private cellphone account and contract onto HIS account. Though I somehow missed the end where it says Rogers also gave the jilted lover her voicemail password. The company has issues, sever issues and deserves being sued if this is the case. OK...you're right. The husband called in to consolidate accounts into one. In so doing, he reduced his paperwork (one bill and not htree) and realized a savings. So, the question becomes...what privacy laws are in affect? And we have our answer: “In Ontario, we don’t have a privacy act, unlike British Columbia and other provinces.”So privacy concerns are no longer applicable. Especially since, per the article, that's not in the claim to begin with. This becomes a question of Canadian contract law. Did Roger's terminate her contract unilaterally? Doesn't sound like it. Simply because her phone still WORKED - so she (they her H and her) were paying for services that Rogers continued to provide. And try this...call YOUR phone company and say you got married or divorced...do you need to completely re-do your contract? Or does the rep simply change it...I remember when I got D and we split our joint cell phone bill into two separate accounts (with a name change)...took ten minutes over the phone. Again, its my take. And really, talk about missing the forest for the trees....
Darth Vader Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Probably, but it also saves a Rogers customer alot of money by bundling home phone, cell, internet and cable into ONE. Many people I know do this and Rogers has a family plan for cell users (kids, both parents) that's included as well. It's also favorable for the company to do this, more cost savings, less paperwork since it's all going to one residence!
crazycatlady Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 In any case, surely we can all agree that the xOM getting her voicemail password from the company truly is wrong, right? Which makes me think something is totally screwed up at the company. I don't see why a wrong makes another wrong right. Simply because she was a cheater and from the looks of it rather unremorseful too, I don't agree with what the company did. I tried to see if there was more to be found about this, but it seems as if the story just broke? And that it happened in 07, but also happened again in 09 until she moved cell companies? Granted it sounds fishy on her part, but if they did do it, I still stand by on the fact that what they did was wrong, her misbehavior does not make what they did right. And with some companies today, nothing surprises me. So let this be a lesson to all people wanting a private cell phone, make sure you get paperless billing - so the whole paperbilling cost saving bullcrap can be thrown out as a reason to violate a contract in that manner. Shoot, just get paperless billing anyway. Better for the enviroment cheating or not cheating CCL
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 This becomes a question of Canadian contract law. Did Roger's terminate her contract unilaterally? I think they did. They terminated her contract and initiated a joint contract without consent. It's irrelevant that she maintained phone services she expected. Sounds like breach of contract.
jwi71 Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 In any case, surely we can all agree that the xOM getting her voicemail password from the company truly is wrong, right? Which makes me think something is totally screwed up at the company. I don't see why a wrong makes another wrong right. Simply because she was a cheater and from the looks of it rather unremorseful too, I don't agree with what the company did. I tried to see if there was more to be found about this, but it seems as if the story just broke? And that it happened in 07, but also happened again in 09 until she moved cell companies? Granted it sounds fishy on her part, but if they did do it, I still stand by on the fact that what they did was wrong, her misbehavior does not make what they did right. And with some companies today, nothing surprises me. So let this be a lesson to all people wanting a private cell phone, make sure you get paperless billing - so the whole paperbilling cost saving bullcrap can be thrown out as a reason to violate a contract in that manner. Shoot, just get paperless billing anyway. Better for the enviroment cheating or not cheating CCL I just don't know enough about the law and this will come down to hair splitting. Personally, taking the legal aspects out CCL, I still have no problem with this and boils down to "IF you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to hide". I couldn't care less if my next spouse reads every text and email I send and receive... And giving out the voice mail password. Oh man, ouch. I don't know why she didn't go after this. Oh, wait...yes I do. Because then she can't draw a line to losing her job and making 600K from THAT incident.
jwi71 Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I think they did. They terminated her contract and initiated a joint contract without consent. It's irrelevant that she maintained phone services she expected. Sounds like breach of contract. One small problem I just thought of. If she didn't agree to this new contract...why did she continue to pay the bills? Couldn't you say that is acceptance of terms? Anyways, not a direct challenge to you...I literally just thought of it....
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I dunno. It's not clear from the article. I would assume that after D Day any joint accounts would have been canceled.
whichwayisup Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 In any case, surely we can all agree that the xOM getting her voicemail password from the company truly is wrong, right? Which makes me think something is totally screwed up at the company. Unless I missed this info, where does it state that the OM got her voicemail password? Where does it say he called Rogers, and they gave it to him? Do you have link for this info?
lkjh Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Does this really surprise anyone? You guys have seen how cheaters on this site justify their actions and blame everything and everyone else
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Unless I missed this info, where does it state that the OM got her voicemail password? Where does it say he called Rogers, and they gave it to him? Do you have link for this info? Near the bottom of the article. After she terminated her relationship with the “third party” in August 2007, the jilted lover, himself a married father of three, called Rogers and obtained her secret password to her voicemail and used it to access it to harass her and taunt the husband, the statement of claim alleges. Not sure how they'll prove it.
whichwayisup Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Well, aren't calls "recorded"? Usually when you're put on hold there's a voice telling you, "This call is being recorded for blah blah reasons".. I wonder if the OM pretended to be her husband? Or, if he knew her pw beforehand... This situation is messy and sadly, this woman going public 3 years later isn't going to make it better. Her kids are going to suffer most.
crazycatlady Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Usually the calls are "this call MAY be recorded for training purposes". I can't say a wrong makes another wrong right or less wrong. It just doesn't mix with me - something my H and I argue philosophically on a regular basis actually . I don't care what she has done, it still does not make this right. Merging their accounts is not a simple clerical error. Someone had to go out of their way to do this. CCL
delirious Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I agree with CCL this for example could also have been credit card statements bulked together, I am sure that would cause problems with many marrieds. Not everyone is honest about those.
crazycatlady Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 So what do you believe is the appropriate remedy, CCL? The best remedy will never happen - a public admitance of wrong doing and an apology. Instead monitary awards are made in hopes that a company will learn from it. I do think 600k is a bit much, maybe 150k? I don't know. LOL @ delirious - no kidding! Just make sure you cc are with different companies.
jwi71 Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 So what do you believe is the appropriate remedy, CCL? IF Roger's is found to have unilaterally and fundamentally altered the contract () by consolidating bills at her H's request then they should refund her the monies she paid under the (somehow) invalid contract. Their liability ends there. IF the contract at the point of consolidation is null and void (somehow) then Roger's owes her the monies she paid. She paid monies under a contract she didn't agree to and under this substantial () altering of a contract she shouldn't have. Of course, she DID use the phone during that time. Which means she used a Roger's service without a contract that she KNEW was null and void at that time (she clearly knew the billing had changed thus voiding their contract). Roger's MAY be able to pursue fraud charges against HER for knowingly using a service she wasn't entitled to use (invalid contract that she knew at that time was null and void yet used services anyway). She can't claim it was null and void because of the name change to sue FOR 600K and not know she was using their services without proper consent (a contract). She can't have it both ways here. And Roger's NEVER revealed her A. (How could they?) Her OM did. So Roger's didn't contribute to the breakup of the marriage...her OM did - not too mention her own actions. I love this stuff.
Spark1111 Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Hmmm.....right to privacy does not extend to personal relationships by corporate vendors. Right to privacy by corporate vendors extends to financial information: it may not be sold or breached. This woman probably paid her account out of joint assets, even if only once or twice. Her husband, once providing info on their joint account, had every right to bundle services, regardless of who the original bill was sent to. You have no right to privacy on the internet, as the airwaves are owned by all. Similiar to text, and cell phone usage. They can be subpoened in a court of law in the US. You only have the right to never have your financial information sold or breached to another company or individual, unless, of course you are married, and usually providing the SS#, DOB, and address will suffice with most customer service reps. Joint assets and joint debt are shared equally in a marriage here.
donnamaybe Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 You might not but I fully expect her to become the feminist's new favorite victim to rally behind and for most women to support her. I thought you stopped all this ridiculous BS.
Woggle Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I thought you stopped all this ridiculous BS. I am not saying this about all women but yes I do think there will be a large number of women out there supporting her as some feminist hero. I must admit though I have been pleasently surprised by the comments I have read on other boards. She will have her army of supporters though.
Woggle Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I'm sorry you've been hurt, Woggle. But not all women, in fact a majority of women, are not deserving of your hatred and mistrust. Didn't I just say not all women? I said that she will have a large army of supporters but I never said it would be the entire female gender. When this case gets international attention which it will she will become somewhat of a feminist hero though.
donnamaybe Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I'm sorry you've been hurt, Woggle. But not all women, in fact a majority of women, are not deserving of your hatred and mistrust. This is absolutely the truth. Woggle, I had begun to gain some respect for your strength of character to have finally started getting past the hurts inflicted on you by a miniscule portion of the general female population. Now my viewpoint is right back where it was before.
donnamaybe Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Didn't I just say not all women? I said that she will have a large army of supporters but I never said it would be the entire female gender. When this case gets international attention which it will she will become somewhat of a feminist hero though. See? This is the kind of stuff you say that diminishes you greatly in my eyes.
Woggle Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Are you denying that what I say is true though. Do you really think the misandrists of the world won't see her as some victim of the evil patriarchy? Pointing this reality out does not mean I am bashing the entire female gender.
donnamaybe Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 Are you denying that what I say is true though. Do you really think the misandrists of the world won't see her as some victim of the evil patriarchy? Pointing this reality out does not mean I am bashing the entire female gender. There will be a very minute portion of females who would ascribe to this philosophy. You make it sound like there'll be parades in her honor and that any woman who has feminist traits (heaven forbid women should be treated like intelligent people with something to offer ) would be singing her praises.
Dexter Morgan Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 wish I was a judge presiding over this lawsuit. I'd love to tell this lady "you betrayed your husband and are simply pissed that he found out? Boo effin' hoo lady...get out of my court with your worthless ass!":p;)
bittersweet memories Posted May 19, 2010 Posted May 19, 2010 I am not saying this about all women but yes I do think there will be a large number of women out there supporting her as some feminist hero. I must admit though I have been pleasently surprised by the comments I have read on other boards. She will have her army of supporters though. I really doubt that very much...
Recommended Posts