DQ5: What are some social and legal implications of management fraud? How can a company protect itself from fraudulent
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
Fayol vs Mintzberg, who is right? The theoretical models of management presented by Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg respectively, bear clear and striking differences in how they explain the “changing nature of management and leadership”(Brooks, 2009). To argue whether the image displayed by Fayol is superior to that of Mintzberg I will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the differing models and compare, as well as with the opinions of other theorists. This will allow me to conclude which image is superior and in what senses the descriptions of management established by Mintzberg are ineffective. In this essay I will argue that while it is clear that the concepts of Fayol have been largely superseded by modern descriptive views such as those of Mintzberg and Kotter, he laid out the foundations so to speak (remove this) that allowed modern thinkers to develop their theories in greater detail.
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
* Is the sample representative? Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.
(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this situation? The ethical issues involved in this situation pertain to following accepted accounting principles. Violating the generally accepted accounting principles to satisfy a short-term personal or company would create misleading financial statements. This situation would therefore be unethical. Robbin Industries is jeopardizing itself by not properly reporting the advertising costs.
True B. False Question 22 of 50 1.0/ 1.0 Points Deciding that internal controls are effective when they in fact they are not is an example of assessing control risk too high. A. True B. False Question 23 of 50 1.0/ 1.0 Points The SEC is responsible for setting standards for not-for-profit organizations.
DQ1: Review the case study Just Because it’s Legal, Is it Ethical in Perspectives in Business Ethics. How might bankruptcy law provide an outlet for unethical behavior? DQ 2: Consider the topic of air pollution. Discuss whether a business should go beyond what the law requires. How might a company be rewarded or punished for making an ethical or unethical decision?
The question is whether the competition is covered by statutes implying that refund of competition fee is attainable should the competitor be unfit to take on the competition. Jenny cannot take the law of frustration in consideration, because it will only bring an advantage to the opposite party, and not to her, hence the law of frustration sets aside the contract. Law There are three reasons why terms may be implied into a contract. First, where a term is required to give business efficacy to the contract these terms are generally known as terms implied by fact. Secondly, where terms flow from the obligations of the common law or statute these terms are called terms implied by law.
Equity in the legal process faces the challenge of objective and subjective barriers. Integrating a lawyer’s personal morality as a necessary part of the client-attorney relationship may result in decreased equity in the pursuit of justice. I believe Tanovich’s personal amorality of lawyers an embodiment of blind justice. This second point acts in unison with Tanovich’s suggestion that a truly “blind” justice system can only exist when populated with a legal profession that removes itself from the vagaries of personal morality. Canada’s socio-demographic profile increasingly requires a justice system that is blind to such subjectivity.