scholarly journals The Expectation Gap In The Legal System: Perception Differences Between Auditors And Judges

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Lowe
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Bank Loan ◽  
Small Business Owners ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Role Responsibilities ◽  
Loan Officers

<span>The expectation gap, and its related effects on auditor legal liability, has been presumed to be caused by diverging perceptions by the auditing profession and third party litigants regarding the professions role, responsibilities, and related performance. Prior research regarding the expectation gap has focused on diverging perceptions of different groups (i.e. financial analysts, bank loan officers, small business owners, and auditors). While this research has identified an expectation gap between auditors and certain third-parties, it has neglected examining the perceptions of judicial litigants. This absence is somewhat ironic given the current auditor legal liability situation. This study fills this void by comparing judges and auditors attitudes toward the auditing profession. Results revealed a large divergence in perceptions of auditors and judges regarding their expectations of the auditing profession.</span>

Factors of Small Business Mentoring and Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-114
Author(s):  
Brajaballav Kar ◽  
Subrat Sarangi
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Business Failure ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Small Business Owners ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Process Outcomes ◽  
Perceptions And Expectations

Mentoring is essential when we consider the socio-economic profile of small business owners and the considerable rate of business failure. Entrepreneurs are independent as well as innovative by nature, and they may not like to discuss their confidential business issues with a third party. On the other hand, a mentor has to understand, help, support and improve overall aspects of the mentee’s business. Thus, mentoring entrepreneurs seems to be inherently contradictory. The function of the mentor and the mentoring process outcomes are not precisely understood. The argument ‘Mentoring is what a mentor does’ indicates the lack of clarity. This research uses a semi-structured interview and survey method to understand the mentoring process in practice. The perceptions and expectations of mentors and small business owners are analysed. Findings indicate that mentors are more likely to underestimate the outcomes of the mentoring process compared to mentees. The appropriate experience and expertise of the mentor are considered more important in the mentoring process. There are no significant differences in the perceptions between mentors and business owners regarding mentoring contribution to marketing, finance and people management skills. Factor analysis for the 15 variables used in the scale suggests 6 factors such as capacity building, connect, chronemics, collaboration, concreteness and trust (5Cs and 1T) to be critical mentoring outcomes. The article contributes to small business owners, mentoring practitioners and funding agencies by clarifying the relationship among various factors involved in mentoring. The article also discusses the future agenda for research on small business mentoring.

Bank Loan Officers' Perceptions of Business Owners: The Role of Gender

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Wilson ◽  
Sara Carter ◽  
Stephen Tagg ◽  
Eleanor Shaw ◽  
Wing Lam
Keyword(s):  
Business Owners ◽  
Bank Loan ◽  
Loan Officers ◽  
Bank Loan Officers

scholarly journals Legal Liability For Losses Of Third Parties In The Agreement To Transfer Property Rights With An Absolute Power Of Attorney

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Finni Rahmawati
Keyword(s):  
Government Regulation ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Power Of Attorney ◽  
Transfer Property ◽  
Land Registration ◽  
Absolute Power ◽  
Notary Public

Abstract: An agreement to transfer title to land based on absolute power is prohibited by law. The prohibition of absolute power is regulated in Instruction of the Minister of Home Affairs number 14 of 1982 concerning the Prohibition of Using Absolute Power for Transfer of Rights to Land, and Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 Article 39 paragraph (1) letter d concerning land registration. However, the reality is that there is still a land sale and purchase agreement using an absolute power of attorney, causing losses to other parties. The problem is how is the legal responsibility of the seller and the notary against the loss of a third party due to the use of absolute power of attorney in the agreement to transfer title to land. This study aims to determine the legal liability of the seller and the notary against the losses of third parties due to the use of absolute power of attorney in the agreement to transfer ownership of land rights. The method used in this study is a normative juridical method using a statuate approach and case approach. The Study found that the seller's responsibility was based on Article 1365 of the Civil Code, namely by providing compensation for the value of the sale value of the land minus the owner's debt without involving a third party with good faith. And the accountability of the notary is contained in Law Number 30 of 2014 Article 84 concerning the Position of Notary Public and Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 Article 62 concerning Land Registration which explains the sanctions for notaries. In this case it relates to the loss of a third party in good faith.Keywords: Absolute Power, CompensationAbstrak: Perjanjian pengalihan hak milik atas tanah yang didasarkan pada kuasa mutlak merupakan sesuatu yang dilarang oleh hukum. Pelarangan kuasa mutlak diatur dalam Instruksi Menteri Dalam Negeri nomor 14 Tahun 1982 tentang Larangan Penggunaan Kuasa Mutlak Sebagai Pemindahan Hak Atas Tanah, dan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 24 Tahun 1997 Pasal 39 ayat (1) huruf d tentang pendaftaran tanah. Namun realitas yang terjadi masih terdapatnya suatu perjanjian jual beli tanah menggunakan surat kuasa mutlak sehingga menyebabkan kerugian bagi pihak lain. Permasalahannya adalah bagaimanakah pertanggungjawaban hukum pihak penjual dan notaris terhadap kerugian pihak ketiga akibat penggunaan surat kuasa mutlak dalam perjanjian pengalihan hak milik atas tanah. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pertanggungjawaban hukum pihak penjual dan notaris terhadap kerugian pihak ketiga akibat penggunaan surat kuasa mutlak dalam perjanjian pengalihan hak milik atas tanah. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu metode yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa pertanggungjawaban pihak penjual yakni berdasarkan Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata yaitu  dengan memberikan ganti kerugian seharga nilai penjualan tanah dikurangi hutang pemilik tanpa melibatkan pihak ketiga yang beritikad baik. dan pertanggungjawaban pihak notaris yaitu terdapat dalam UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 Pasal 84 tentang Jabatan Notaris dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 24 Tahun 1997 Pasal 62 tentang Pendaftaran Tanah yang menjelaskan sanksi bagi notaris. Dalam hal ini berhubungan dengan kerugian pihak ketiga yang beritikad baik.Kata Kunci: Kuasa Mutlak, Ganti Kerugian

Cláusulas de franquicia o deducible en seguros de responsabilidad civil en el Derecho español: Naturaleza y efectos respecto de terceros perjudicados

2018 ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Rafael Lara González
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Liability Insurance ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Insurance Contracts ◽  
Spanish Law ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Legal Nature

ResumenPese a su ubicuidad en la práctica contractual, las cláusulas de franquicia han recibido tratamiento incidental en la doctrina. La discusión sobre ellas se ha enfocado en los contratos de seguros de responsabilidad civil, y en la interpretación del artículo 76 de la Ley española de Contrato de Seguro. En este contexto se ha tratado de establecer si el asegurador puede o no oponer la cláusula de franquicia al tercero perjudicado. El presente trabajo analiza la cláusula de franquicia en la obligación principal del asegurador, su naturaleza jurídica, y examina su relación con los terceros perjudicados. La consideración principal a este respecto estará en si nos encontramos ante un seguro obligatorio o ante un seguro voluntario de responsabilidad civil. Palabras clave: Contrato de seguro; Cláusula de franquicia; Terceroperjudicado; Responsabilidad civil.AbstractDespite their ubiquity in contractual praxis, deductible clauses have received only incidental treatment in legal doctrine. Discussion on them has focused on civil liability insurance contracts, and the interpretation of article 76 of the Spanish Law of Insurance Contracts. In this context it has been attempted to establish whether the insurer can invoke the clause to oppose the injured third party's claim. This article examines the deductible clause included in the insurer's main obligation, its legal nature, and its relation to injured third parties. The main consideration in this regard will be whether the insurance contract is of a mandatory or voluntary nature.Keywords: Insurance contract; Deductible clause; Injured third party; Civil liability.

Suggestions on Tax Support for Small Business Owners

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-107
Author(s):  
Sung Ho Jang ◽  
Sung Ook Park ◽  
Hyung Jong Na
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Small Business Owners

Retirement, Recessions and Older Small Business Owners

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tami Gurley-Calvez ◽  
Kandice Kapinos ◽  
Donald James Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Small Business Owners

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document