Main Post
As per Yates, Berenicki-Korol, and Clarke (2013) an offense under tort is committed, when an individual causes injury to another party, whether – bodily harm, property destruction, or reputation. Under tort law, if it is held by a court of law that the defendant’s behaviour fell below a minimum social standard – then, the plaintiff may be financially compensated for the applicable injuries. In essence, tort concerns a civil wrong that creates an opportunity to sue and to pursue one of several remedies, like - punitive damages and injunctions (p.98 – 99). With an understanding of the term tort in hand, in what follows - the writer endeavours to apply the laws under tort to the case in this discussion question.
Larry v Stacey - defamation
…show more content…
Based on Yates, Berenicki-Korol, and Clarke (2013) Stacey’s action could be viewed as unethical accounting practices which could be to the detriment of Larry’s business as artificially increasing expenditure of a business will result less gross profit, which means that less company tax would be applicable. Even if Larry is not at fault, this could hurt his business especially in situations where the event is publicised. Consequently, this could negatively impact Larry and his business; thus, resulting in a defamation of character (p.112 -113). In addition, Larry may sue Stacey in terms of tort of deceit if she misled him to think that the expenditures registered in the accounting records were all incurred by the business (Yates, Berenicki-Korol, and Clarke, 2013, …show more content…
Therefore, the actions of Brian are subject to punishment under tort law in terms of misuse of confidential information (p.125). As for Stacey and her expired driver’s license, she may be liable to pay a fine for the breach, to the municipal government in the associated territory (InsuranceHotline.com, 2016). As it relates to Meaghan, she may escape liability under tort since she did not act intentionally or outputs of carelessness concerning the vehicular collision with Stacey (Yates, Berenicki-Korol, and Clarke, 2013, p.98
Case 1: In this case. As a certified public accountant, Erickson oversaw and initiated an arbitrary adjustment to increase cash and decrease accounts receivable. Also, Erickson signed Form 10-K with full knowledge that the financial statements include therein incorporated entries misstating revenues. As we can see from this case, Erickson’s behavior not only violate the Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100(g) and (i), but also against the ethical theories.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
Taking a look at Donald Cressey’s hypotheses which is now known as the fraud triangle depicts the certain criteria for the mind frame of the fraudster. The fraud triangle is a theory that consists of perceived pressures, perceived opportunity, and rationalization. It gives us the different pressures placed on individuals that would make them consider “cooking the books.” It also demonstrates where the possible opportunity lies so that we may take precautions to eliminate the opportunity. Last, it demonstrates how a fraudster rationalizes with themselves to make committing the fraud okay. Donald Cressey believes all three elements must be present for fraud to occur. Upper management is usually the focus of financial statement fraud because financial statements are done at the management level. So in this case financial statement fraud was committed by the CEO Gregory Podlucky
Fletcher’s paradigm of reciprocity is a model that describes when liability for an act is shifted from one party to another – in the case of tort liability from victim to defendant. The paradigm discusses two issues. The first issue is whether or not the victim has a right to recovery from an injury. The outcome of the first issue – whether or not the victim has a right to recovery – is dependent on both the actions of the victim and the danger posed by the defendant at the time of the injury. If the actions of the victim posed as much danger to the defendant as the actions of the defendant posed to the victim then there would be no transference of liability. Both parties would be at fault in this case. However, if the actions of the victim did not pose as much danger to the defendant as the actions of the defendant posed to the victim then liability would be transferred to the defendant. When the danger that each party exhibits on one another is unequal there has to be transference of liability. This leads into the second issue that is discussed by the paradigm.
after suffering harm from the acts of the other party (Turner, 2013). A tort is a civil wrong
His project manager, Oliver Freeman, changed the analysis. that Daniel submitted in order to get a clear opinion so that their firm may get an exclusive account. The. My decision was to report the incident so that the correct information would be supplied in the audit documents. The decision I chose may cost Baker Greenleaf to lose an important client and Oliver Freeman to lose his job, but it will uphold the integrity of the accounting profession and keep Daniel Potter safe from the liability of providing false information.
But in order the books should look a little acceptable and no one should come up on their fraud instantly and specially the lower level bookkeeping team by doing their day to day entries and knowing that utility expenses is not a capital improvement they had to do it in a professional way
Manipulation, falsification (forgery), or alteration of accounting records or documents from which the financial statements are prepared.
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.
Furthermore, poverty also played a huge role in determining whether a women was a witch or not. However, scholar Keith Thomas, cited in O’Connor’s journal article, stated that “in England prosecutions can scarcely ever have had a financial motive. Most of the victims were extremely poor.” This passage is important because one can determine that poverty indeed may have been a factor in individual women being prosecuted for being witches. Many women were unmarried and uneducated, so they did not have the appropriate resources to support themselves so they ended up in jobs like prostitution and begging, which were indeed against the norm during the Renaissance period.
The Tyco accounting scandal is an ideal illustration of how individuals who hold key positions in an organization are able to manipulate accounting practices and financial reports for personal gain. The few key individuals involved in the Tyco Scandal (CEO Kozlowski and CFO Swartz), used a number of clever and unique tactics in order to accomplish what they did; including spring loading, manipulating their ‘key-employee loan’ program, and multiple ‘hush money’ payouts.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
Dowd (2016) runs above and beyond with the clarification to state accounting fraud incorporates the change of accounting records in regards to sales, incomes, costs and different components for a profit motive, for example, boosting organization stock prices, getting ideal financing or maintaining a strategic distance from obligation commitments. Dowd is of the feeling that covetousness, absence of straightforwardness, poor administration data and poor accounting interior controls are a couple of explanations behind accounting fraud. (Dowd,
From the 1990s, the reports that cover the compensation cases increased dramatically in the mass media (Almond, 2004). There is a view that a huge number of tort cases in the ‘compensation culture’ are unjustified and unfair. In the mid-1990s, the term ‘compensation culture’ first appeared in a famous British newspaper (Levin, 1993). Actually, this is an extreme view, which will be criticized in this paper. This essay emphasizes the compensation culture is a myth (Morris, 2007). There are three reasons: Firstly, the data of the tort claims declined in recent years. Secondly, some victims do not receive the compensation or enough compensation that they deserve. Thirdly, the mass media and public organizations created the ‘compensation