Bank transactions are usually sensitive in nature and in all cases there should be confidentiality between a bank and its clients. In this respect, Brittany is not aware of the two transactions amounting to $724.93 on that very Friday. Despite the fact that she uses her personal account to run her business, I would advise Brittany to first report this matter to her bank immediately. Since it could be after banking hours on Friday, the best approach is to send an email regarding this issue before visiting the branch that will be operational on Saturday. It is only after doing so that she will be in a position to understand whether the withdrawal was a banking error or a fraudulent activity. In most cases, Brittany could have issued a cheque to a third party and forgot about it. On a different note, this could be a fraudulent act, hence the sooner the problem is discovered the better chances Brittany has to put this situation under control.
In the United States, banking institutions, bank accounts, and banking transactions are regulated by overlapping laws, rules, and regulations that are developed and implemented by various federal and state agencies. A sole proprietorship, under the United States laws, does not have independent rights and liabilities from the owner and vice versa. In this respect, the owner of a sole proprietorship cannot be separated from the business that he or she is running. Having this in mind, Brittany and her business are one and the same entity. Furthermore, there are no rules and regulations that make it mandatory for her to use different bank accounts for her business as well as her personal banking. However, it is always advised to have separate bank accounts for personal and business transactions for varied reasons such as proper accounting, ease of taxation, professionalism and so on. If Brittany had taken this consideration, it would have been easier for her to track these suspicious transactions and determine whether indeed she is the one who initiated them or whether they are an act of fraud.
Banking institutions have the mandate to ensure that depositors’ funds are safe. This is a requirement by law as enforced by the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation (FIDC). In the case of Brittany, it is the duty of the bank to authenticate all transactions on her account. Before clearing a cheque, for instance, the bank should have taken an extra step to authenticate whether or not this transaction was indeed authorized by Brittany herself, especially given the fact that the names on the cheques were not Brittany’s but of a different party. Based on this, I do believe that Brittany should not be held liable for the monies that were withdrawn from her account despite the fact that she uses it for both her personal and business transactions. The bank should thus conduct an investigation as to how the funds were withdrawn from Brittany’s account and ensure that she gets a full refund of the same.
To prevent such events from happening in future, Brittany should have separate accounts for her personal and business transactions. Despite the fact that she might incur charges for maintaining her business account, there are numerous benefits of separating these types of transactions. First, having a business account ensures that Brittany will maintain proper books of accounts for her business transactions. This approach will also ensure that the IRS views her operations as a business and not as a hobby, and hence she will be able to deduct business expenses to reduce her tax liability. Furthermore, she will be able to keep track of her business income and expenses, and hence easily detect an act of fraud. Secondly, having separate accounts for business and personal transactions will make it easy for Brittany to declare her taxes since she can easily identify her business and personal expenses, something that she cannot do at this point and time, hence the current situation. Finally, a business account will make Brittany’s operations seem more professional since cheques that she addresses or that are addressed to her will bear her business name. This is important, especially in building trust and credibility with customers.
In the process of negotiation, most parties often focus on the substance of the deal and overlook the process of arriving to the substance of the deal. In this article, the author emphasizes on the importance of negotiating the process by critically discussing and analyzing issues that will affect the outcome of the deal. In so doing, the content of the substance will be clear, hence avoiding mistakes in developing the final substance of the deal. The author also emphasized on normalizing the process so that both parties can have a clear understanding of the context of operations as a means of preventing them from overreacting during adverse events. This article also focused on the importance of understanding the influence that different parties have on the deal at hand before making a decision. Finally, to achieve specific goals, this article also expounded on the importance of coercing the other party using the options that a party has as leverage.
The frame is psychological lens through which both parties view the significance of the negotiation process and the subsequent consensus that will be reached. It is therefore wise for parties to adjust the frame early in the negotiating process to ensure that the consensus that will be arrived at is beneficial to them. To realize this, it is important for parties to focus on the value of the product or service that they are bringing on the table over price. By emphasizing on this aspect, the other party will appreciate the value presented and as a result come up with an effective means of monetizing it. Additionally, it is also wise to have different alternatives and numerous options. This is essential in developing confidence in the negotiation table, especially in overcoming the worry of the aftermath that might come about if a deal is not arrived at. Finally, it is always important to negotiate with the other party as an equal despite the fact that there might be difference in terms of size or operating capital. In so doing, a mutual respect is developed, and hence the final consensus will have the best interest of both parties.
It is common for parties to overact in events where certain processes do not go as expected. In such situations, the credibility of the party handling the process is usually questioned and this might have adverse effects on the relationship between the parties at hand and in some cases, the consensus that was arrived at might be terminated. Therefore, it is advised to normalize the process as a means of critically discuss factors that might arise on either party’s side affecting the ability to realize set goals and objectives. By having a clear understanding of factors that might delay the process, instances where the progress might be slow or delayed, and barriers might affect the rate of progress and instances that might raise anxiety, both parties will be prepared for adverse scenarios, and hence come up with effective means of solving the problem at hand resulting to the achievement of the set goals and objectives without affecting the relationship that is present.