- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- Posts
“Review the correspondence from the customers claiming food poisoning to assess whether Pineapple has a present obligation as a result of a past event.”
Professor don’t you feel it should have been “Review any LEGAL correspondence from the COURT”? customers might try to threaten the company and say that it has filed a court case, without actually filing one. So, to avoid providing for any amounts (on the grounds of such threats) is wrong, as there will never be any cash outflow, unless of course a court case has legitimately been filed.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.