Customers are trusting each merchant not to release their personal information to anyone, or entity that could potentially use their address or phone numbers in a harmful way. As stated by Valdez (2014), “Loyalty programs depend on the collection of customer information, which is used to personalize marketing campaigns, recommendations and discounts.” (para. 1). Therefore, customers should not be placed on a mailing list or calling list unless they approve the release of information to third parties with their signature of understanding and confirmation. Ethical Concerns Valdez (2014) advises, “Loyalty programs that reward decision makers may run into ethical issues when the decision maker is separate from the payer.” (para.
Courts would consider most people would be more cautious of their surroundings and careful to avoid a situation such as this particular collision. In order for plaintiff, Yvonne Esposito to prove the defendant’s negligence, she must prove that David did not hold up to his duty of care and her injury will defend her claim as it is legally recognizable (Miller & Jentz, 2008, p. 90). In a crowded place, Davis should have been more aware of his surroundings. While accidents do happen, he should have exercised more caution, especially near a crowded exit after an event. In Davis’s defense, he may argue assumption of risk, superseding cause, and possibly contributory and comparative negligence.
This would be important for accounts receivable - money that is owed by a customer for products/services. Representing a company in small claims court requires one to be familiar with the law and how it relates to accounting practices. In the Mack v. Edenwold Fertilizer Services Ltd. case, if Mack had a knowledgeable accountant that was familiar with the law, he may have been advised not to sue as the illegality of the situation would have resulted in a loss. In turn, this advise would have saved Mack both time and
Drug addicts and alcoholics should not involuntarily be committed to a hospital for assessment and treatment. All individuals have the right to self-determination and their personal autonomy to live their life the way they choose should always be respected. Individuals of age should have the liberty to decide what is best for them without government paternalistic interference. If interference is required because an individual’s actions harm others, legal actions should be taken to punish them lawfully by still respecting their rights. The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them.
Any gifts or bartering, fees, or any tips, etc., should be mapped out and discussed. Both the AACC organization and ACA organization value the emphasis of doing no harm to the client (AACC, 2004, p. 3 section 1-110). The ACA differs from the AACC in that it discusses issues related to bartering and gifts. The following statement is from the ACA code of ethics: "Counselors may barter only if the relationship is not exploitive or harmful and does not place the counselor in an unfair advantage" (ACA, 2005). Therefore, counselors are allowed to bartering except that which is harmful or exhibits an unfair
The law on confidentiality and restrictive covenants are in place to ensure that employer’s business interests are protected. Employers may rely on mechanisms such as the confidentiality clauses and restrictive covenants to protect their businesses from damaging competition, disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information. The objective of these provisions is to avoid employees from abusing they employer’s business interests when the employment has come to end. The degree of protection provided to employers differs if the employee has ended the contract of employment. The implied duty of fidelity protects business interests and imposes a obligation employee must not disclose any information or trade secrets of their employers business.
The company should also show that a valid effort has been made to follow the security plan. The company cannot be held liable for random acts of violence, just because it was on their property. If the company makes even a little effort into parking lot or garage safety, I do not think they can be
Which party has the burden of proof in the case? Which level of proof will be used? The party seeking damages (plaintiff), in this case Mr. James Mitchell and the union, has the burden of proof. This case would be considered a civil matter and would be guided by the principles and procedures commonly found in settling civil lawsuits and in regulatory agency cases. This includes presenting “clear and convincing evidence” as the level of proof that must be offered in order for the plaintiff to win the case (Clear and Convincing Evidence Law & Legal Definition, n.d.).
Question 1: Auditors should not insist that their clients accept all proposed audit adjustments even though those that have an immaterial effect on the financial report. The auditors should be suspicious of any rejection of the clients and have to investigate deeper into the suspicious accounts. Moreover, auditors should not be careless even though they have close relationships with the clients and fear that they would lose potential auditing fees. Question 2: Materiality is a concept or convention within auditing and accounting relating to the importance/significance of an amount, transaction, or discrepancy. The objective of an audit of financial statements is to enable the auditor to express an opinion whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in conformity with an identified financial reporting framework of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
One of the important ethical issues to check, is that you do not know the person, and that you are not connected in anyway that is inappropriate, this is called a dual relationship this may be unavoidable in small towns, we would also need to assess that that there are no sexual attractions, on this basis the therapist may decide they cannot work with the client, and may offer the client an alternative therapist. The prospect that this could happen must be explained to the client in the initial consultation, so you can build trust, and the client can feel that you are working in their best interests. It is also important to make sure that the power of the relationships formed between therapist and client is of an equal one, it is extremely valuable to empower your client, and not take the power. The only time a therapist should show authoritarian power is when using inductions which require this