Quote:
Originally Posted by First Lady
I think when you respond to this....
Quote:
|
By your reasoning, if volunteers sat in their homes and made these calls you would want Telus/Shaw/Rogers all brought up on charges too.
|
my point will be established. |
I'm not going to play this game with you all night, but I'll bite one last time.
One obvious difference is that Telus, Shaw and Rogers have whole department's whose only purpose is to identify inappropriate use of their services.
In other words, those 'service providers' take
reasonable measures to product the public from abuse of those services. Are they perfect? By no means, but they do make a
reasonable effort.
I think we've already established, that the "I had no idea" defence rarely works.
Again, I'm not placing blame on the whole affair on RackNine but taking no measures against abuse of your services is not acceptable or
reasonable business practice.
Was it reasonable of RackNine to believe that none of their clients would abuse the service? Of course not. We're all aware of any number of automated caller abuses. Given the likelihood of abuse, a responsible service provider, they - like Telus/Rogers/Bell - would be obliged to take
reasonable measures to prevent future abuse.