LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006 From: Stourport-England Status: offline
|
As managing director, I am at full liberty to do what the hell I feel is best (within the law) to fulfil the aims of the company. If I feel tomorrow that smashing all the office furniture with hammers and throwing the PCs out of the window will help to fulfil the aims of the company - that is my decision to take. If I feel tomorrow that allowing a certain customer - lets say BMW, an extra 60 days credit on what they owe us for payment at end December, will help to fulfil the aims of the company - that is my decision to take. If I feel tomorrow that providing BMW with a full credit for all outstanding invoices due at end December and January will help to fulfil the aims of the company, that is my decision to take. So how you find anything odd in what the OP discusses I do not understand. What the OP discusses is the provision of a credit as per the last example or the provision of a rebate. Again, as managing director I am at full liberty to agree rebates with customers as I see fit in fulfilling the aims of the company. The level of rebate is up to me to decide, whether that is 1% of annual spending or 100% or anything in between. This is not a gift or a loan - it is a commercial decision which I am at liberty to make with a view to the future commercial success of the company. I am answerable only to the law - and I have broken no law here in what is normal day to day commercial decision making - and the shareholders for my conduct and the overall performance of the company. As for auditing, which applies to companies over a certain size only, this does not in any way affect the ability of the directors thereof to determine pricing, discounts, rebates, credit periods or any such commercial factor as is discussed in the OP or here. To have a law which affected commercial decision making in this way would be wholly incompatible with the market economy. Now, unless you can quote the particular provisions of the Companies Act as amended or other legislation to support your view that the exercise of powers by company directors in determining the marketing and commercial positioning of their company in these regards according to the aims of their companies are illegal, we should perhaps leave it there? The law of contract could be an issue of course; it is not possible to change the conditions of a contract once that contract has seen full performance from each party, as may be the case in the OP - although it is within the powers of the directors to agree a credit in part or in full for the contract concerned. However, directors are at liberty (with the agreement of the customer) to amend a contract which has not yet seen full performance whereby a rebate/discount or longer credit term might be arranged, or to make a new contract whereby a rebate/discount or longer credit term might be arranged in respect of agreed future spend by the customer. It is for the directors to decide at which point a rebate/discount might be applied, once the existing contract is amended or the new contract concluded - whether that is at a certain point in time (day 1 to day 365 as is commercially desirable), following on from a certain spend ($1-00 or $1 million) or other criterion. E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|