Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan
I love this part...
Q: Did you not breach a marital contract with your spouse before Rogers breached their contract with you?
A: I don't know how to answer that because the bottom line is they were negligent in protecting people's private information. It's unacceptable for them to take it upon themselves [to disclose my personal information]. There is no such excuse as an error because you have to sign a document and you expect them to be protective of personal information. My personal information is my life.
She totally doesn't get it.....
|
That question has two connotations. The first, and the one that Jetsfan and others seems to be picking up on, is that the breach of the contract with Rogers doesn't matter because the marital contract was breached first. Those are two separate issues but the timing of those breaches could go towards a determination of damages. Was it foreseeable that the plaintiff's marriage would go down the crapper by consolidating the bills? Did the alleged breach of privacy materially contribute to her losses? [aside: for a great discussion about the state of causation in Canada, check out this post at the U of A Faculty of Law Blog:
http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/facul...uroboros.html]
The second connotation, I think, is that while the interviewer is not entirely clear he or she could be implying that it's rather duplicitous and does not lie in the plaintiff's mouth to complain of a breach of contract herself having just committed a different but more serious breach of contract with her family. There's that old maxim in equity that equity must come with clean hands. In the court of public opinion, the plaintiff's hands are as dirty as they come notwithstanding she is guilty of no wrongdoing or unethical behavior if you look solely at the Rogers contract issue.