Susan, a law professor, was in Israel when her cellphone was stolen from her home in Toronto. Upon her return, Rogers, the cellphone service provider, advised that $12 000 in calls had been made from that phone and she was responsible for payment. Susan replied that she would not pay, since those calls were unauthorized and had been made from her phone after it had been stolen. In response, Rogers, among other actions, cut off her young son’s cellphone service. The son’s phone had been acquired by Susan for safety reasons since he would be taking the subway, alone, to school for the first time starting in September. Susan was responsible for bills associated with her son’s cellphone, but the cellphone was held under a separate contract. A judge ultimately determined that Rogers was in breach of contract when it cut off her son’s phone service, since it had no legal reason to do so. Among other heads of damage, the judge awarded Susan $612 in damages for “lost wages” because she had to drive her son to school while his cellphone was blocked. Do you think Susan’s mitigation was reasonable? What else could she have done? Do you think that Rogers should appeal this decision? Why or why not?