Transparency is supposed to be, nowadays, the mantra of all relationships, both professional and romantic, yet doesn't everyone have the right to their own little privacy?
Transparency is supposed to be the leitmotiv of all relationships nowadays, whether in a professional or romantic setting. However, doesn't everyone have the right to their own little secret garden?
For instance, a couple in their sixties develops a romantic relationship. Both parties got divorced over thirty years ago and have had long-term romantic relationships since then. Although they don't live together, their relationship evolves and, going from words to actions, they engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.
After a few months, the woman starts experiencing pain and itching in her genital area. "She notifies the man, who then reveals that he has been carrying herpes for over ten years. Their relationship continues, and a year later, the man announces to the woman that he is interested in another woman. This leads to a breakup." The woman, after consulting a specialist, is obliged to take daily medication. She informs the man, who apologizes in writing, expresses remorse, and includes $200 with his letter. Three months pass, and the woman takes the matter to court* and sues the man for over $145,000.
The court concludes that the man "committed a fault that establishes liability by not disclosing to the woman that he was a carrier of genital herpes." The woman was unable to adequately inform herself and make an informed decision. Therefore, the man committed a fault that resulted in his liability. However, the woman lacked caution and vigilance, as she took risks herself, which means she must bear 50% of the responsibility for the damages she suffered.
In business as well as in love, your garden can never remain a secret if you don't watch who lingers there. Let's remember that we are always responsible for our actions; it is up to each individual to know the other party before accepting a gift because not all gifts are necessarily presents.
*Court case number: C.S. 505-17-002724-062
