Conclusive research is based on the assumption that the researcher has an accurate understanding of the problem at hand
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
TRUE
You might also like to view...
Net income was $ 61,000 for the year. The accumulated depreciation balance increased by $14,000 over the year. There were no sales of fixed assets or changes in noncash current assets or liabilities. Under the indirect method, the cash flow from operations is $47,000
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false
In a direct financing lease, the lessor's carrying value of the leased asset is less than its fair value
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Under the Disabilities Act, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations. This could include:
a. providing a reader for a blind employee b. providing wheelchair access to company facilities c. modifying work schedules to accommodate disabled employees d. redesigning work stations so they are usable by disabled persons e. all of the other choices
Requirements for HDC Status. Pamela Haas, an employee of Trail Leasing, Inc, had access to her employer's blank checks. Over a period of about two and a half years, Haas used the firm's checks to fraudulently obtain cash from the firm's bank, Drovers
First American Bank. She carried out her scheme by writing checks payable to Drovers First, having the checks signed by an authorized officer of Trail Leasing, and then taking the checks to the bank. There she would fill out a "change order form"—a form used by bank customers to specify the coins and bill denominations in which they wished to take cash for business operations—and pocket the cash that she received. By the time the scheme was discovered (through a discrepancy in one of the change orders), Haas had negotiated fifty-five checks for a total of nearly $40,000. Trail Leasing sued the bank to recover the funds paid to Haas without its authorization, and the issue turned on whether the bank was a holder in due course of the checks delivered to it by Haas. Specifically, the issue was whether the bank had taken the checks for value. Trail Leasing argued that because the bank essentially paid Haas from Trail Leasing's funds (by debiting Trail Leasing's bank account), the bank had not given value for the instruments and therefore could not be an HDC. Will the court concur in this argument? Discuss.