Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

,

An Adulterer’s Right To Sue

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by Sargeant

BU is always trying to tackle issues on moral grounds. I mean every month there is some thread on homosexuality but I don’t see any threads on infidelity but perhaps many don’t see infidelity as a moral issue.

The following is a story about infidelity with a twist because the woman who was caught is suing the media Corporation who let the cat out of the bag. The story in a nutshell ( I am attaching a newspaper article) is the woman had her cell phone in her maiden name and received her cell phone bill separately. The husband decided to “bundle” the internet, cable, home phone and his cell bill together which saves a whole whack of money. The next month when he receives the bill his wife’s bill is included with all the numbers that she had called including several calls of lengthy duration to one number. The hubby suspicious calls the number and discovered that his wife has been making the beast with two backs with the individual who is at this number. The husband picks up and leaves, the wife is devastated and spends her time all weepy at work, couldn’t perform her duties and in time is terminated from her job which pays $100,000 pa (she claims).

She subsequently discovers that her husband found out about the affair because of the bill and is suing Rogers Corp to the tune of $600,000.00 for “ruining her marriage”. Perhaps what her husband didn’t know wouldn’t hurt him and Rogers let the secret out.

Did Rogers breach her contract? Was it a case of “just deserts”? The courts will decide, in the meanwhile BU lawyers, would be lawyers, pseudo lawyers, moralists etc. can chime in.

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

32 responses to “An Adulterer’s Right To Sue”

  1. David Avatar
    David

    @Sargeant

    Yes BU has frequently blogged about homosexuality although your reference to monthly is an exaggeration. It is one of those visible issues wouldn’t you say?. Feel free to kick start any issue going forward.

    This matter you raise leaves BU flabbergasted for the moment!

  2. anthony Avatar
    anthony

    ruining her marriage is what she did.so i don’t think she could win on that point. she might be able to sue based on roger combining the package and her cellphone without her instructions. but then that husband asked for it to be combined not roger forcing it on them. so i see no real way for her to win in the Canadian courts. if was the us courts now i would say she had a 50/50 change even with those disadvantages.

  3. Blue Eyes Avatar
    Blue Eyes

    I believe she would win the case. (1) The company should not have included her bill with her husband’s the mere fact that she has used her maiden name should have alerted them to the fact that this is another account totally distinct and separate from the others. Permission should have been sought by the company from her before bundling them together.

    The amount of compensation sought however might be debated.

  4. David Avatar
    David

    @Blue Eyes

    A dichotomous situation if ever there was one. A wife who by virtue of her wedding vows is assumed to be faithful to husband but for an action by the husband reveals the sordid truth. What a lovely world we now live in.

  5. anthony Avatar
    anthony

    well it all depend on when the account was opened. if was before they where married and she just did a change of address to the new home address roger has no fault. all the husband had to do was call and ask to have all the services bundles at that address to come to his name. the article does not state if roger asked if to bundle the cell account with her maiden name to that address as well it just states husband asked for services to be bundled. but if they did and husband said yes no fault would be @ Rogers.

  6. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    It seems to me that what Rogers did was indeed a breach of contract, but the claimant should have some difficulty establishing that that breach caused the ruin of her marriage. Can it be said that Rogers ought to have reasonably contemplated that if it sent her bill to her husband the marriage would have been destroyed? Remember, Rogers had no knowledge that she was having an affair; that she was calling her lover on that cellphone or that the husband would have reacted in the way he did.

  7. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    I heard of this story while flicking through radio channels the other day. I did not give it much attention, dismissing it as the actions of a socialist being a capitalist the only way they know how, which is to be a victim. lol!

  8. Rich Avatar
    Rich

    Yes, Roger Corp should be sued for breach of contract, but the damages should be the amount of the phone bill for the month the husband made the switch. She ruined her marriage not Roger Corp. Step up woman and take some responsibility.

  9. Yardbroom Avatar
    Yardbroom

    The contract was between Roger corp and the claimant, as she used her maiden name that position is strengthened. The question is, could a competent person acting on behalf of Roger Corp be expected to know or should know that bundling the phone bill would have had an adverse effect on the claimant; or were they irresponsible or careless in their actions…I believe they were not.

    There is a moral dimension to this case but I would steer clear of any judgement in that regard…a court of Law is not a court of morals. A competent person acting on behalf of Roger Corp was neither reckless or irresponsible in the action they took.

  10. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    If this is all to the story perhaps the husband was longing for a reason any reason to pack up and go; probably ta be wid he mistress, anyway. It is probably more in dis mortar than de pestle yah.

    ROK, I hope dat you in calling na udda woman wid dah cell-fone I boughted you, hear? Aw-riteeeeeeeeeeeeee. Cause I would hurtz you serious.

  11. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Yardbroom
    Good evening my dawlinks.
    As Judge Judy would say, “you have to come to court with clean hands if you want to be compensated”.
    And all that time her face set up like rain. Judge Judy ain’t easy at all. I luv she bad.

  12. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    Look that woman only looking for some-one to prop she up financially now that she husband left. It is funny, if it was the other way around,the woman would have been making this blog hot cussing the wutlis men. I hope she don’t get a cent because if she does this would open a big can of worms for much more law suits.

  13. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    The woman lost a $100,000 a year job.

    Surely it is worth it for her to try and get back on her feet.

  14. victor Avatar
    victor

    More fool her for (a) communicating via ways that can be discovered (eg email, cellphone, etc.) and more fool her for having the affair in the first place. If you don’t like where you are and long for greener pastures, make a clean breast of it and leave. (b) regardless of the moral issue, we all have rights to privacy and contracts are a legal way of protecting ourselves. She should get compensation.

  15. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Hants
    she shoulda tink bout dat befoe she bought de otha cell-fone. (oops,did I just say dat)

  16. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Devil’s Advocate here…

    Person, say Mr.Jones, owns a car dealership. His wife’s family owns a car parts store.

    Mr.Jones wife buys a phone, for her use, including Store Inc business.

    Mr.Jones, bundles to save money. Sees on the bill, a number from say, Japan. Calls, finds out that there is a new supplier on the market, selling parts cheaper, looking for a wholesaler.

    He offers a good deal, gets the dealership instead of Store Inc.

    Thus, Store Inc has suffered economic loss as a result of the telephone company’s action (note that despite Mr.Jones signature, it is the telephone company at fault, as he had no authority to bundle, according to the terms of agreement).

    Could it have reasonably be foreseen that Mr.Jones would use the subsequent bill to gain advantage?

    Maybe not, but only because the telephone company employee did not understand the concept of separate legal persons and thus results of errors. If the tepehone company employee understood that a separate legal person could benefit from a wrongly directed bill, then the possibility of a loss is surely there, to be foreseen?

    Similarity therefore, is that a separate legal person existed, a separate contract.

    Therefore, the misunderstanding is with the telephone company, not the claimant. With that in mind, an error on the part of the telehone company should be considered liable for economic loss.

    Moving on to the issue of the lady’s job, for which a claim has been made, that the loss of the job is due soley to her inability to work subsequent to the break up of marriage.

    The question is whether (1) the breakup of the marriage and (2) the job loss, are the result of the tepephone company’s error.

    This answer is more difficult. However, the answer lies not in whether it is reasonable to assume that the marriage would have failed anyway, nor whether her own actions were right nor wrong, but the fact itself i.e. that the breakup was precipitated by the telephone company’s actions.

    The answer is yes.

    On the matter of the job loss, due to her mental anguish resulting from the event, it must be noted that many have to work through difficult times in life.

    Nevertheless, if we take such anguish as in fact occurring, while one may argue that the anguish follows the error of the telehone company, it cannot be denied that she contributed to her own anguish, by her actions prior to the event with the tepehone company.

    Therefore, one may conclude that while the telehone company is liable, damages must be restricted by her own contribution to the scenario.

  17. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Crusoe
    Your ‘story’ got me confuse.It doan tek much ta confuse me anyway. But anyway, let’s stick to the real story at hand. Alrite?
    Now, you feel that her ‘loving’ husband would just up and leave just so over something as trivial as cell phone calls or whatever it is? Man, I feel that he was just waiting for the right opportunity to ‘get way from she’. He was like a cat waiting by a mouse hole just waiting fa his ‘prey’ to appear. He probably fell out of love and was hoping that the opportunity would present itself. Doan blame de fone Co. man. He wanted out. It is okay for her to vent her feelings. Keep the tear ducts functioning man.. She’ll get over it soon and find herself another lover-lover. And with a pay cheque like that it shan’t be too difficult. Love hurts, they say.

  18. anthony Avatar
    anthony

    while playing the devil advocate such a scenario would be usless in comparing the two cases

    1 Store Inc didn’t have contract with supplier to become wholesaler. so no loss of sales can be established.
    2 If they did would be suing supplier not dealership for loss of income. because of failure to commit to contract
    3 telephone company has liability in this case because no business was formed or agreed to. so loss of earning cannot be derive.

  19. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    Bonny Peppa
    I believe this man suspected that something funny was happening and this was the ploy he used to get to the bottom of what was happening. A real man can or better should know when his wife/woman is cheating. however, I do think she might have a case with the phone Co but nothing near what she is asking. The bottom line is, if he didn’t catch her then, he would have caught her another way. She’s a bold woman though, that marriage was over a long time ago, she’s just looking for money since she can’t get much, if any, from her husband.Oh what an outcry this would have been if the scenerio was reversed.

  20. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    I am still trying to figure out how she is blaming the Co. if it is the husband who decided to ‘bundle’ all the phone bills together without first discussing it with his wife. Like you said, he probably was suspicious.

    But she is a foolish woman because if that was me, tricky me, I would’ve used another address. She was using her maiden name but same home address. Now that is not smart woman. Don’t go half way with a scheme like that, go all the way or you will be caught in de act. stupseeeeeeeeeeee.
    Bro. Scout, you ever heard the joke about the husband and wife who were lying in bed reading. His book was entitled ‘100 ways to have sex with my wife . Hers was 101 excuses not to have sex with my husband.
    Ya like um? me luvs um. She in smart a’tall man. 🙂

  21. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    I think Rogers is wrong and that the lady should be compensated. Rogers had no business adding her cell phone to the package. Rogers should have stuck to the services listed in the husbands name only. If a boarder lived at the same address (lots of students take up private accommodation) would Rogers also have bundled the tenants bill with the householders even though they had different names on the bill?

    I think this is nonsense on Rogers part. In Canada, women are now persons and can have bills in their own names, not their married title. In days when women were chattel, Rogers could do this, NOT today. I think she should sue for more, at least $1 million.

    can own property, sit in the Senate, etc.

  22. J Avatar
    J

    Dear Pat:

    You are absolutely right. Rogers is very clearly wrong.

    Rogers had a written contract with the husband.

    And a quite different written contract with the wife, different name and everything.

    Rogers had no business bundling the accounts of 2 different people, with 2 different names unless it got the written consent of both people; and clearly Rogers did not receive consent from the woman to bundle her acount with her husbands.

    I klike your ranology to the situation of landlord’s and tenants.

    If the woman had been the landlord and the man the tenant, would Rogers have bundled the tenants and landlords’s bills and then sent a bill to the tenant only? Clearly not.

    I say mek’ Rogers pay for their carelessness.

  23. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Anthony, I disagree.

    Supplier and client lists are ‘proprietary material’.

    Thus, if it can be shown that the owner of that material potentially lost the exclusive rights that they were after, due to telephone company’s error in disclosing that material, then there is a liability.

    The fact that the person who received that material in the example did in fact obtain such rights, points to action and cause of loss.

  24. David Avatar
    David

    Looks like Sargeant’s position has been vindicated. So far we have had some very interesting opinions from the legal perspective but what about the fact this woman allegedly committed adultery? Is it enough to stimulate discussion? Perhaps adultery and fornication has become a normal way of life?

  25. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    David
    I realise the women who responded seems to be supportive of the woman in the scenerio. Again I am curious of what the response would have been if the situation was reversed. It seems women now have the right to behave as they like and the men must carry all the blame, even for their adulterous living.

  26. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    Bonny Peppa
    I heard of a situation where a husband was parked out with a side kick having some fun. His wife came on the same area with her side kick and saw her husband’s car. Before the foolish woman do what she came to do and leave, she went and confronted her husband to find out who is the woman he had in the car. I heard she recieved some hot lashes from the husband and she had to catch a bus home because the husband left her there after the lashes and the side man had long bail out from the scene. What a stupid woman, she knew that her husband was there but he didn’t know that she was there because she was in a car he knew nothing about, but that is typical woman, she didn’t think she was doing anything wrong.

  27. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    Bonny Peppa
    I also know of another case where a group of fellows were having a drink one saturday evening and a man was raging one of the fellows there about a move he saw him on the friday night. This guy told his friend that he saw him parked a particular place and the back stocks on the car want changing because of the movement up and down that the car was making. The man went home and put some lashes on his wife because she had borrowed the car that night to go by her sister. who ever thought that men any worse than women?

  28. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Bro Scout
    The moral of the last story is, when using ya husband car ta park out, use FAKE numba plates. 🙂

    Pat
    Now that you made that point it is an eye-opener. The Co.is at fault then. When in doubt, ask.
    But I still feel dat de hubby did lookin fa a way out, any way out. You feel so too?
    And she cryin and losing sleep, stupseeeeeee, ya see wah love does do ta ya? You did evva in luv sa bad Pat?

  29. xoxo Avatar
    xoxo

    Why should the poor Husband pay for that dutty tramp ho’s phone bill

    Ken Boothe – Moving Away

  30. Kiki Avatar
    Kiki

    @xoxo l’etat, c’est moi
    I guess she’s vexed because she didn’t have the chance to clean up hubby’s bank account before she could claim victim status in the biased family courts with false accusations of alcohol abuse and domestic violence

    He’s probably got a broken heart. Emotionally speaking it’s a hardy organ. And ultimately we always upgrade: think of someone who looks just as good in a miniskirt but doesn’t own four “Sex and The City” box sets. Isn’t he feeling better already

    Ken Boothe & ub 40 Crying over You

    Ken Boothe Crying Over You

  31. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ Bonny Peppa

    No, my dear. I never loved that bad. I love them bad in bed. After, the love does subside and the head takes over.

    I agree that the husband probably wanted an out. So what if she called a man on her private phone, that does not say anything. He did not catch her in bed with anyone. I have some male friends that I call regularly but I am not sleeping with them. We are mates and confidants.

  32. Bonny Peppa Avatar
    Bonny Peppa

    Pat
    You only love during the ‘course’? Nutton wrong wid dat. It is said that when a man’s penis is hard, his heart is soft and that is the best time to ask him for anything. LOLLL. Not too many hard penises out there I guess. 🙂

    I agree that the husband probably fell out of love with her and had some young fling young enuff to be his grand daughter and he was just waiting for the opportune time. Life can be beautiful. She’ll find someone she deserves again someday. De phone Co foul up massive-time.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading