5. The confidentiality agreement did limit the scope of the audit performed on ZZZZ Best. It is the job of the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. When Ernst & Whinney were not allowed to follow-up with anyone involved in the restoration process that limited their ability to gather evidence. The company should have been able to follow up with all venders and customers to attest to the validity of the financial statements and they were not able to do this and not able to gather the “appropriate and sufficient evidence” needed.
As the plaintiff Mae Tom has all the rights to sue the store owner for negligence. The store owner should keep the store in a safe condition at all times. The Kresge’s failed to practice the mode of operation rule. The business does not keep any record of past incidents which makes a stronger case against the store that it may have had similar incidents reported and failed to do anything about it. The owner may have verbally received many complaints from customer about its wet floor in the past and it consistently ignored the fact that it can be prevented by fixing the problem.
What evidence suggests that Cash Connection’s strategy and business model are ethical and beneficial to customers and to society at large? What evidence suggests the company’s strategy and business model are neither ethical nor beneficial to customers and that the entire payday lending industry has few if any redeeming qualities? * There are many evidences suggest that Cash Connection’s strategy and business model are ethical and beneficial to customers and to society at large. Cash Connections is not breaking any legal laws which may lend people to think they are ethical, but does Cash Connection pass the moral test is the question. Cash Connection as well as other lending organizations is taking advantage of the hard times individuals have fallen on but at the same time the lending industry is beneficial in that it provides more than 150,000 jobs and contributes up to $10 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product.
It is ethically wrong for them to keep it, regardless of if they were let go from the company. Further, this connects with Deontology in that if they were to keep the money from their former place of employment then it may become universally acceptable. As Kant states, “An individual must act as though his or her action would become the general rule of society.” Keeping the money would set a bad example for others in similar situations and may even lead to society believing it is acceptable to “swindle” from their employer. In order to follow a standard of morality and ethics it would be in their best interest to return the money to their former employee rather than risk their reputation and the negative trend that they could set for
Before 2002, this was never done and that is what lead to a lot of these big corporations downfall. After SOX became in affect, it made it almost impossible for officers of these major corporations to “play stupid”. They require, not the company but the law now requires the officers not to just believe that someone else has completed the financial records, but they have to know for sure that everything has been done correctly, they have to sign off on all of the financial paperwork. The law also mandates that any stock holders in the corporation have rights to have the auditors come in and conduct there own financial statements and conduct audits as well. The SOX act is governed by eleven titles that make up the rules and guidelines and some are considered to be more important than the other.
He also made some key mistakes like buying overpriced networks and not doing research to see what other types of media he could get into. As a CEO or manager of a company your jobs are to satisfy the client and to make the business/company profitable. Canwest was not doing this because they were seeing a decline in the sales of their newspapers and TV networks, but instead chose to ignore these signs and do things their own way. “But its Asper’s largest acquisition that’s causing him the biggest headache” (Hood 2). When Asper acquired the rights to Alliance Atlantis and the popular specialty TV channels such as Food Network, HGTV and Showcase, it was worth approximately $2.3 billion, which Canwest did not have.
If no proof is provided, under the minority view of The Specific Intent Test, it could be concluded that the company did not want the employee or any other employee to quit, but to abide by the new policy in order to keep up with the demand of the company’s growth. If the company’s working conditions are found by the court to be reasonable, the claim will fall short under both tests. With regards to the current claim against the company, the change in the work schedule policy affects all production employees. It was not the intent of the company to make the change to cause working conditions to be so unbearable that an employee would quit, therefore it is not constructive discharge. For the protected class of Religion, Title VII states that covered employers shall not treat employees differently based on religion, harass employees based on religion, deny reasonable accommodation requests, or retaliate against employees (EEOC, 2012).
A tangible product must be created to warrant protection and the documentation of this idea and its execution must be clear. Copyright law exists to foster creativity and productivity and protect intellectual property, but this begins with the due diligence of the entrepreneur. Creators of new ideas cannot make assumptions about those whom they are employed, and they cannot allow their ideas to be made available to people they do not trust. It is likely that the Winklevosses did not have an idea about how popular their idea would become, and this was ultimately extremely costly for them. However, this case also clarifies how important it is to protect ideas and avoid informal work relationships with people they are not certain they can
Brown Shoe Company had proposed to merge with Kinney Shoe Company, another shoe manufacturer. Neither the Shoe Company comprised a significant fraction of the market, nor the merger would not have had an important effect on market absorption. The courts blocked the merger, using as their justification the incipiency precedent, which stated that even if market concentration will not be greatly increased by a horizontal merger, it is still necessary to prevent the merger so as to ensure no further threats to market concentration. The incipiency precedent, in essence, made all horizontal mergers illegal even though many might not have led to any kind of market power on the part of any firm. G. Stolyarov II (Dec 3,
There was not process in place to follow for recovery for when a mistake was discovered or a problem was reported. The funds were not distributed for the natural disaster that they were earmarked for which has caused some uncertainty for future donations from the public and private donations. This system is supposed to be part of the corporate culture and should have established integrity for all the stakeholders. However; the American Red Cross did not have this in place which has caused turmoil within the organization and has caused them to be running a deficit and has had to downsize. A code of code of ethics should be developed for the American Red Cross.