- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
PQ Awards Nominations
Please help us to win one of the PQ Magazine awards and send in the voting form >>
You can nominate us in any or all of the following categories: Online College of the Year, Study Resource of the Year, Private Sector Lecturer of the Year, and Accountancy Personality of the Year.
Specially for OpenTuition students: 20% off BPP Books for ACCA & CIMA exams – Get your BPP Discount Code >>
Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA AA Exams › PINEAPPLE BEACH HOTEL
“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.
No – that would be to “dismiss” the existence of any liability. And companies often settle claims “out-of-court”.