17 May 2010

The end of personal responsibilty...

PART XXXIV -- Woman with round heels seeks $600,000 corporate payday for personality flaw...

“The plaintiff wept uncontrollably at her workplace . . . and became incapable of performing her employment duties,” reads the statement of claim.
Our modern world.

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"Anyone who carries on an affair, does so with the full knowledge of the possibility of the spouse finding out in any of a number of ways, none of which would carry a $600,000 payoff."
What's that old saying... "Cheaters never prosper"?

Let's hope, in this case, it turns out to be true.

**********

RELATED: Poor dear has a point...

...time to take away the weight pile.


10 comments:

Anonymous said...

This mutt got busted screwing around so there is little chance of her collecting any gold from hubby. Now she is going to squirt a tear or two and do a successful gold mining job some where else( rogers). Got to give the tramp points for determination.

Rob C

Frances said...

The woman's conduct is inexcuisable, but how would you feel if you had - let us say - a bank account under your 'maiden' name and your spouse was able to merge it with the family account on one statement without your knowledge? Bet you'd be somewhat ticked off, to say the lease.

What bet the Rogers rep said something to the effect of 'have you any other accounts such as a cell phone because you can save money on by doing a bundle' and the husband said 'yes, my wife has a cell phone account number xxx-xxxx'. Away you go.

In times past, it was generally considered that either husband or wife spoke for the family when handling accounts. Not so anymore, and I'm having increasing problems being able to get information on decades-own cards, etc., that I set up, paid for, etc., etc. If it's in my husband's name, then it's he who has to talk to the rep, even if hubby has no clue. I get 'Privacy' as the answer to my complaints.

Anon1152 said...

"[what if] your spouse was able to merge it with the family account on one statement without your knowledge? "

Francis: I initially came across this story in the Globe, and thought it would fit under Neo's "end of personal responsibility" tag. He (of course) beat me to it. But I digress.

My first thoughts were the same as yours.... though I don't recall* anything from the article(s) as specific as you suggest. I would like to know more details. For example, who decided to "bundle" the phone, internet, etc?

I love this part of the star article:

"He called the number, spoke to the “third party” who confirmed the affair, which had lasted only a few weeks, Nagy told the Star."

Was the third party the other party to the affair?

Anyway.

I would bet money--yes, really, though given that I don't have much, I'll not bet more than a Toonie...But I digress...

I will bet at least two dollars that this [at least as it's described here] is thrown out of court.

Our system allows people to make ridiculous claims. Less often, it allows people to cash in on them.



*admission: it's late, I'm tired, and I don't care a great deal about strangers' relationships.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon1152 says... this [at least as it's described here] is thrown out of court."

you might wanna hang onto your money... remember... serial child-killer clifford olson is currently collecting a government pension.

the law can be way more than an ass.

*

Anne in sw ON said...

Anyone who carries on an affair does so with the full knowlege of the possibility of the spouse finding out in any of a number of ways, none of which would carry a $600,000 payoff. Sorry, lady (I use that term very loosely), you pays your money and you takes your chances. Get off your now sorry a$$ and get a job!

maryT said...

It might surprise a lot of people to know how many banks have started sending monthly stmts that go to one address, in the same envelope, regardless of names on the accounts.
Ex-his stmt, her stmt, joint stmt.

mikey said...

I agree that the woman carrying on an affair was despicable and deserves the consequences that flow from it.

However, Rogers seriously breached our privacy laws and no doubt their contractual obligations. The fact that the aggrieved party is not an angel does not reduce the severity of their failings.

Let's hope that both Rogers and the adultress pay for their respective failings.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"mikey says... Rogers seriously breached our privacy laws"

hmmm... i'd be pretty interested in seeing someone actually cite that law.

the implication is that... rogers could be sued by any married or unmarried cohabiting couple who had their bill consolidated.

rogers defense seems to be that they did this regularly... it was simply policy.

not a small financial matter, i imagine.

*

Josephine said...

Why should convicted criminals in prison get better medical care than average Ontarians?

Compared to a couple of close relatives of mine with herniated discs, this guy received speedy treatment.

If he wins, I'm going to tell my relatives to sue Canadian taxpayers for millions.

While we're at it, we should sue for free post-secondary educations to prepare my relatives for careers that don't aggravate their back injuries which were improperly and insufficiently treated through the OHIP system.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"josephine says... Why should convicted criminals in prison get better medical care than average Ontarians?"

sure you wanna go there, jo... i mean, how's your blood pressure?

"Call me crazy... but my Grandma should eat at least as well... as serial killer Paul Bernardo."

friends don't let friends vote liberal.

*