Busted!

Well it seems that it has been quite some time since my last blog. I have been tossing around the idea of kicking this thing back up and have decided that now would be a great time to do it.

I hope to spend some time in upcoming posts looking back at the last year and a bit to remember the good and the bad - but also want to spend alot of time looking forward.

However, for the first post back in quite some time I thought I would be wise to take it easy and warm things up a bit before stomping on the accellerator - get the creative juices flowing once again.

I thought a recent item in the news would be a great way to get back into the groove and kick off some discussion.

For those who are not already familiar with the story, you can find it here .

The Coles Notes version goes like this:

• Wife has a seperate cell phone account with Rogers.
• Husband decides to add Rogers internet and cable service for their house.
• In the process of adding the cable and internet, the Customer Service Rep notices that the man's wife has a cell phone account and recommends adding it to the same bill.
• Husband receives the combined bill and notices a phone number that receives an awful lot of attention on his wife's cell phone.
• He calls the number and ends up discovering that wife is having an affair and promptly leaves her and their children.
• Wife is so distraught she ends up losing her job (her claim of damages - $600,000)
• Wife is suing Rogers for breach of privacy and claiming Rogers ruined her marriage and caused her to lose her job.

So who is in the wrong here?

Was Rogers wrong for initiating the change in billing procedures without her consent? Did the wife get what she deserved? Does her claim for damages have any merit? Would your opinion be any different if the roles were reversed and it was the husband who got busted?

I completely side with the wife here - even though I think she's getting exactly what she deserves. Rogers does need to share some of the fault here for unilaterally altering her contract without her consent. However, I also think her statement of damages is completely ridiculous. At worst, I think Rogers could be on the hook for a refund of her cell phone expenses - nothing more.

A simple way for them (Rogers) to have avoided this whole mess would have been to tell the husband that they needed her permission to be added to the combined bill and when she refused, that in itself would have raised enough suspicion for the husband to figure out what was going on.

If there is anybody left that still reads these things - Welcome Back! I'd love to hear your thoughts.