The Family Support Center is a small charitable organization. It has only four full-time employees: two staff, an accountant, and an office manager. The majority of its funding comes from two campaign drives, one in the spring and one in the fall. Donors make pledges over the telephone. Some donors pay their pledge by credit card during the telephone campaign, but many prefer to pay in monthly installments by check. In such cases, the donor pledges are recorded during the telephone campaign, and the donors are then mailed pledge cards. Donors mail their contributions directly to the charity. Most donors send a check, but occasionally some send cash. Most donors return their pledge card with their check or cash donation, but occasionally the Family Support Center receives anonymous cash donations. The procedures used to process donations are as follows:
Sarah, a staff member who has worked for the Family Support Center for 12 years, opens all mail. She sorts the donations from the other mail and prepares a list of all donations, indicating the name of the donor (or anonymous), amount of the donation, and the pledge number (if the donor returned the pledge card). Sarah then sends the list, cash, and checks to the accountant.
The accountant enters the information from the list into the computer to update the Family Support Center’s files. The accountant then prepares a deposit slip (in duplicate) and deposits all cash and checks into the charity’s bank account at the end of each day. No funds are left on the premises overnight. The validated deposit slip is then filed by date. The accountant also mails an acknowledgment letter thanking each donor. Monthly, the accountant retrieves all deposit slips and uses them to reconcile the Family Support Center’s bank statement. At this time, the accountant also reviews the pledge files and sends a follow-up letter to those people who have not yet fulfilled their pledges.
Each employee has a computer workstation that is connected to the internal network. Employees are permitted to surf the web during lunch hours. Each employee has full access to the charity’s accounting system, so that anyone can fill in for someone else who is out sick or on vacation. Each Friday, the accountant makes a backup copy of all computer files. The backup copy is stored in the office manager’s office. Required
Identify two major control weaknesses in the Family Support Center’s cash receipts procedures. For each weakness you identify, suggest a method to correct that weakness. Your solution must be specific—identify which specific employees should do what. Assume that no new employees can be hired.
Describe the IT control procedures that should exist in order to protect the Family Support Center from loss, alteration, or unauthorized disclosure of
Contract Law Legal Advice Example Disclaimer: This work has been presented by an understudy. This isn't a case of the work composed by our expert scholastic authors. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any sentiments, discoveries, ends or proposals communicated in this material are those of the writers and don't really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. Distributed: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 Lawful Advice 1. The shop is depending on an exception proviso. Client An is probably going to have a cure against the shop under calendar 3 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) which prohibits a business to avoid a buyer's legitimate rights. In this occurrence, client A may look for arrangement under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s 14 (2) (merchandise must be of attractive quality) as changed by the Sale of Goods Act 1994 if the shop does not help her. 2. Client B might have the capacity to depend on undue impact, the primary case being National Westminster Bank v Morgan where it was held the inquirer must not experience the ill effects of show impediment. Undue impact essentially implies uncalled for weight on a gathering while framing an agreement. The shop may contend there was no exceptional connection between the gatherings, in which case it is for client B to demonstrate this (Williams v Bayley). Following the choice in Lloyds Bank v Bundy, the inquiry might be whether there was 'disparity of bartering quality' the shop went about as an organization for the HP financers. For this situation, the loan boss (financers) might be not able implement the agreement against client B (Kingsnorth Trust v Bell) if client B can effectively request undue impact then the agreement might be rendered voidable (put aside). 3. In connection to client C, she might have the capacity to depend on the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as altered by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, which states under s.13, that the merchandise must be as depicted (see: Beale v Taylor). There must be a dependence on the depiction of merchandise as chose in: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd, yet in this example the client is qualified for a cure against the shop. 4. Client D is trying to bring a dissension for false distortion under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Expressing that the childminders were qualified is a bogus explanation of actuality (Bisset v Wilkinson). Characterized in Derry v Peek, deceitful distortion is where there are a few variables, one of which is a 'neglectful articulation made without minding whether it was valid or not'. In this example, the shop is at risk for all harms, including all misfortune, to the client (Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers). 5. Neighbors are trying to gripe over a private disturbance. It tends to be characterized as: "persistent, unlawful and backhanded obstruction with a man's pleasure in land… " Balance must be stuck between clashing interests, specifically the shop requiring its conveyances and the neighbors' tranquility toward the beginning of the day. Has the span being persistent? (Bolton v Stone) The shop monitoring the issue, on the off chance that it neglects to address the issue, at that point it might be at risk for annoyance (Leakey v National Trust). 6. The shop has an obligation of consideration under the Occupier's Liability Act 1957, s 2 (1) towards guests, for this situation invitees to the shop (s. 1 (2)). The shop must take 'sensible strides to advise a guest that a zone is too far out. It did as such for this situation, with the notice on the entryway. Under s. 2 (3) (an) of the OLA 1957, the shop must be set up for kids to be less cautious than a grown-up. In any case, the shop is qualified for be guaranteed that the conduct of a youthful kid ought to be managed by a grown-up (Phipps v Rochester Corporation). In this way, this piece of the case may come up short since the mother did not hold her tyke under supervision. In connection to her case for anxious stun, there is a 3 organize test as laid out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, to be specific: a). Was the mother in adequate proximate time and space to the occurrence? b) There must be close ties of adoration and love to the injured individual c) The petitioner more likely than not seen or heard the occurrence or its prompt result. As every one of these answers are in the positive, at that point it is likely this piece of the case might be fruitful against the store. 7. The shop is obligated for damage to F under the Employer's Liability Act 1969, s1. F is never again required to seek after the producer as the shop has educated her, despite the fact that she may do as such in the event that she wishes. F (representative) must show: a) That the deformity in the hardware caused the mischance and b) That the imperfection was because of a blame in the produce. In this part, the business is at risk straightforwardly to F. With F's cases for harassing, the shop is subject under vicarious obligation, since this is a tort by a representative acting over the span of their work. A prominent case for this was illustrated in Jones v Tower Boot Co 8. A notice is an encouragement to treat, where the client makes an offer to purchase (Partridge v Crittenden). There may just be repudiation of an offer where reaction is made to an encouragement to treat (Payne v Cave). For this situation the client acknowledged the terms of the offer and is qualified for the products as expressed (Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores). 9. The shop is obligated under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The way that H's sister did not make the agreement is unessential as the instance of Stennett v Hancock represented that an obligation of consideration is owed to a man getting presents from the first purchaser (H). Under s. 2 (1) of the CPA 1987, the provider (shop) is obligated, since the client can't distinguish or contact the maker. 10. The shop owes K an obligation of consideration as plot in the 'neighbor' rule of Donoghue v Stevenson. To demonstrate carelessness, there more likely than not been an obligation, that obligation was ruptured and causation. Consequently, the shop is careless for this situation. Likewise, K may have a case under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which places strict obligation on anybody in the dissemination evolved way of life where a customer endures hurt. 11. This agreement is disappointed. On account of Taylor v Caldwell, it was resolved that where an agreement relies upon a given thing (for this situation 100 copper pots), and there is difficulty of execution of the agreement, at that point the execution ought to be pardoned. The two gatherings are released from further execution for this situation as the provider can't supply the request asked. 12. Part installment of an obligation can never be fulfillment for the entire installment as delineated in Pinnel's Case (1602). This has since been affirmed in Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove. Further, if the cash can't be recouped at a later date, the teaching of promissory estoppel applies where additionally rights to recuperate the rest of the entirety will be doused (High Trees case) 13. This is an instance of unadulterated financial misfortune. The careless driver does not owe an obligation of consideration to the shop as there was no harm to the shop's property (Spartan Steel v Martin). In view of approach rules, the loss of benefit to the shop is 'non-recoverable' to keep away from the driver from a 'devastating obligation'. 14. This is a careless articulation with respect to the bookkeepers. In Hedley Byrne v Heller, the House of Lords held that a '… high level of nearness or closeness of relationship is required, and for risk to emerge, a unique relationship must be appeared between the producer of the announcement and the individual who depended on it.' XYZ ought to have the capacity to sue the bookkeepers.>GET ANSWER