User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 62

  1. #41
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    And I made it clear that while I think the phone company definitely did something wrong, it has no relevance to her divorce. The company's breach of its privacy responsibilities and the subsequent relevance to her divorce are issues to be judged separately.
    I can agree with that totally. She is making it one and the same issue in her case though.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  2. #42
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It would be part of the divorce settlement. Infidelity is grounds for divorce, but that doesn't mean the offending partner loses everything and is forced to live under a bridge.
    heh.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    If she was awarded money, that would be extraneous. It isn't part of their original marital assets.

    It's funny to me that you're arguing against him opening her mail or sharing bills, but that you want them to have equal money.

    It seems like pretty illogical thinking to me.
    My response of "half" was tongue-in-cheek.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #44
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    My response of "half" was tongue-in-cheek.
    That tends to get lost in the format sometimes.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  5. #45
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kendoiwan View Post
    Are they not legally married and there for recognized as one entity under the law with few exceptions? Yes they are, it is a fact. The opinion part is "will the court recognize her claim?" I don't think so based on the fact of their marriage. That's not rewriting reality. The court hasn't ruled. Reality hasn't been written yet.
    There are quite a few exceptions and I've never heard of court of law (recently) going so far as to extinguish a spouse's individual right (contract, privacy) in a case like this.

    She may win if they breached her contract. I don't know what exactly Canadian law says, but in common law damages from a breach of contract are usually limited to what is foreseeable (Hadley v. Baxendale! I love that case). Whatever the reason for what they did, whether clerical error or administrative stupidity, I doubt a court will find that it was foreseeable her marriage would end by sending a "global" bill to the house. She is more likely to recover what she paid the company and some other damages, but not $600k.

    What right to privacy is in Canada and what damages one may recover is beyond my knowledge.

  6. #46
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    There are quite a few exceptions and I've never heard of court of law (recently) going so far as to extinguish a spouse's individual right (contract, privacy) in a case like this.

    She may win if they breached her contract. I don't know what exactly Canadian law says, but in common law damages from a breach of contract are usually limited to what is foreseeable (Hadley v. Baxendale! I love that case). Whatever the reason for what they did, whether clerical error or administrative stupidity, I doubt a court will find that it was foreseeable her marriage would end by sending a "global" bill to the house. She is more likely to recover what she paid the company and some other damages, but not $600k.

    What right to privacy is in Canada and what damages one may recover is beyond my knowledge.
    That was quite helpful. Thank you sir.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  7. #47
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    First: Ontario has no specific privacy laws. Rogers is liable to protect her privacy under PIPEDA (federal law) and contractually via its own privacy policies. (PIPEDA is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in Canada.)

    Second: Being married in no way, shape or form legally makes two people into "one" person.

    Third: Her moral infidelity is irrelevant to Roger's corporate responsibilities to maintain her privacy.

    The BIG question is would she have sued if she hadn't been doing something "immoral". Cheating is not illegal after all, but the big issue of settlement will likely hinge on whether or not a jury feels she wouldn't have sued if she hadn't been "misbehaving" in the first place.

    As far as maintaining her privacy, it looks 100% crystal clear that Rogers failed to uphold both their own privacy policy and her rights under PIPEDA.

    Not sure what the outcome of that will be.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  8. #48
    I am Sofa King!!! kendoiwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    IsTP
    Posts
    1,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    First: Ontario has no specific privacy laws. Rogers is liable to protect her privacy under PIPEDA (federal law) and contractually via its own privacy policies. (PIPEDA is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in Canada.)
    What does this mean? The no specific privacy laws part? I don't understand that, the rest I get.

    Second: Being married in no way, shape or form legally makes two people into "one" person.

    The U.S. legal concept of marriage is founded in English Common Law. Under common law, when a man and woman married, they became a single person in the eyes of the law—that person being the husband. Soure: Husband and Wife legal definition of Husband and Wife. Husband and Wife synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

    Third: Her moral infidelity is irrelevant to Roger's corporate responsibilities to maintain her privacy.
    I totally agree but she is the one blending the two issues.

    The BIG question is would she have sued if she hadn't been doing something "immoral". Cheating is not illegal after all, but the big issue of settlement will likely hinge on whether or not a jury feels she wouldn't have sued if she hadn't been "misbehaving" in the first place.

    As far as maintaining her privacy, it looks 100% crystal clear that Rogers failed to uphold both their own privacy policy and her rights under PIPEDA.
    I agree they fucked up, but her fuck up is the one the ended her marriage not theirs imo. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...ml#post1161526

    "They the type of cats who pollute the whole shoreline. Have it purified. Sell it for a $1.25"

  9. #49
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    ^ 4 provinces (I think) have specific privacy legislation. Ontario does not. PIPEDA is federal.

    Edit: kendoiwan you quoted: The U.S. legal concept of marriage is founded in English Common Law. Under common law, when a man and woman married, they became a single person in the eyes of the law—that person being the husband.

    Note I bolded "founded" - that origin is back in the 1700's somewhere, isn't it?

    "By the late 19th cent., the need for a separate trust property disappeared, for Great Britain and all the American states adopted "married women's property" statutes, giving wives complete control over their property and their contracts."
    --source: husband and wife: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    446

    Default

    English Common Law had its start in the 9th century under Alfred the Great who unified the 10 Saxon kingdoms of England under one universal law based on the Bible. It grew over the next centuries. Major additions added through the Magna Carta penned by Stephen Langton (who used the Common Law as his model) including the idea that the law was above the King and with the formation of a Parliment under the reign of Edward II. I believe you (PeaceBaby) are correct in stating that it reached its modern understanding with the ratification of the 1706 Treaty of Union.
    ************************************************** ****************************

    This whole concept of blaming someone else for the consequences of your poor choices is absolute insanity. The affair would have been found out eventually and the result would have been the same.

    What is wrong with our society that we eschew personal responsibility and look to make an easy buck off of those we deem more privileged than we. Gone are the days of Robert E. Lee who even facing bankruptcy after his defeat in the Civil War refused to let a Northern Insurance Company pay him a stipend for the use of his name because he refused to accept money that he had not earned? That seems like insanity today, but it was the mark of a gentleman back in the day.

Similar Threads

  1. British woman receiving death threats for racist rant
    By Jack427 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 10:20 PM
  2. Woman Discovers Location of Corpse In Her Dream
    By Epiphany in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 04:38 AM
  3. How would you feel if your child one day dies for his/her country?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 04:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO