The luxury retailer Neiman Marcus is being sued by a former prolific shopper whose husband used her credit and her personal shopper to finance an affair with one of the store's employees. He bought his mistress $1.4 million in luxury items that his wife was unable to return.
Much as I feel for Patricia Walker, this seems more like a personal vendetta (which I can't blame her for) than a case with merit.
They were a married couple and her husband said the gifts were for Walker. How is the store responsible?
This seems to happen so often in affairs. The person who is cheated on desperately wants to blame someone other than the spouse who cheated. And while I get that, it makes no sense.
It isn't a store's responsibility to make sure a man isn't cheating any more than it is a woman's responsibility not to sleep with a married man. It's the person in the relationship who is solely responsible for his actions.
All these lawsuits trying to blame someone else for a person's cheating ways are crazy talk. Sure, a woman can entice a man and turn him on, but if someone steps out on their marriage, THEY are to blame.
This lawsuit may have some merit given it was able to fly at all, but it also seems like there is some element of shifting the blame from the husband to the store and its employee. Sure, it's a shady and sleazy situation, but it isn't Neiman's fault.
A marital affair is ultimately not anyone's business. Sure, I would look down on it and find it gross, but it isn't my place to stop it or to say no. It's impossible to know someone else's situation.
In an affair, there are only two people to blame and neither of them is outside the marriage.
Do you think she has a good lawsuit?
Image via taxbrackets.org
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 11
I'm confused, the article you linked to says he bought the items for his wife, from the employee he was having the affair with, who in turn got a commission. They weren't purchased for the mistress. If the items were used, then I can see why the store wouldn't accept them.
Its technically the stores negligence for allowing an un-authorized transaction on a card that is not in the name of the purchaser. If the man had not been having an affair with the cashier, he might not have been able to use his wife's credit card.
Completely agree with the4mutts.
AI - I'm not sure. Yes, the husband and employee conspired and both sound pretty awful... However, this section gave me pause: {‘‘Had Walker known of this betrayal of trust and confidence,’’ the suit contends she never would have purchased anything from Lo or Neiman Marcus and she would not have ever authorized Tennison or Lo to do so.} This makes it sound like the wife did authorize purchases, but would not have if she knew of the relationship.
As for whether or not the author read the article... It seems to be pretty standard here to have to read a linked article yourself if you want facts. The writers here seem to skim for interesting bits and fill in the blanks themselves based on the outrage they want to write.
DId she not use any of these items? If she was homebound then why was her husband buying her nice clothes and handbags she couldn't use? Unless she was lacking full mental capacity at the time, she should have questioned all these things then.
That said, the credit card company should have taken notice of such a substantial increase in spending as "suspicious activity". Mine did when we purchased a television and it wasn't that expensive, just more than we usually spend at one time.
She has a case if the store was not proactive in protecting their customer- I.E. was the husband an authorized co-signor on the account and why did they not notice the increased spending and contact her directly?
that said- if the husband did purchase said items for his mistress, he's freaking stupid. plain and simple. i worked at a jewelery store outside DC and had a lot of customers who had 2 accounts- 1 for the wife and 1 for the mistress. it wasn't my job to keeping them honest, but i did guilt them into making sure the wife's gifts were nicer and more expensive than the mistress