On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:58:12 -0500, Paul Day wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:33:11 Horry may have written:
>> > as she has not "reported" the theft of the phone the debate over who
>> > has to pay is irrelevant, the phone owner/account holder is
>> > responsible. FULL STOP
>>
>> There's no "debate" over who has to pay the phone company, stupid.
>
> Isn't there? Can her phone company prove _she_ consented to the 19
> number charges?

On the issue of the debt to the phone company, what's relevant is that
the phone company can prove that the premium SMS was sent from her service
(or, more likely, her father's service, as she's only 17 years old), and
that the SMSs were sent before the SIM was reported lost/stolen.