Table of contents

1. Introduction to Accounting1h 21m
2. Transaction Analysis1h 13m
3. Accrual Accounting Concepts2h 38m
4. Merchandising Operations2h 30m
5. Inventory1h 55m
6. Internal Controls and Reporting Cash1h 16m
7. Receivables and Investments3h 8m
8. Long Lived Assets5h 1m
9. Current Liabilities2h 19m
10. Time Value of Money1h 23m
- Time Value of Money Equations
  35m
- Using Time Value of Money Tables
  47m
11. Long Term Liabilities2h 45m
12. Stockholders' Equity2h 15m
13. Statement of Cash Flows2h 24m
14. Financial Statement Analysis5h 25m
15. GAAP vs IFRS56m

6. Internal Controls and Reporting Cash

Fraud and the Fraud Triangle

Financial Accounting

6. Internal Controls and Reporting Cash

Fraud and the Fraud Triangle

Previous problemNext problem

Struggling with Financial Accounting?

Join thousands of students who trust us to help them ace their exams!Watch the first video

Multiple Choice

The doctrine of respondeat superior would apply in which of the following situations?

An employee commits fraud during the course of their employment, and the employer is held liable.

A customer is held responsible for an employee's fraudulent actions.

An employee commits fraud outside of work hours and unrelated to their job.

A company is sued for a competitor's fraudulent activities.

Previous problemNext problem

Verified step by step guidance

Understand the doctrine of respondeat superior: This legal principle holds employers liable for the wrongful acts committed by their employees if those acts occur within the scope of employment.

Analyze the options provided in the problem to determine which scenario aligns with the doctrine. Focus on whether the fraudulent act occurred during the course of employment and was related to the employee's job duties.

Option 1: An employee commits fraud during the course of their employment, and the employer is held liable. This fits the doctrine because the fraud occurred within the scope of employment.

Option 2: A customer is held responsible for an employee's fraudulent actions. This does not align with the doctrine, as it applies to employer-employee relationships, not customer liability.

Option 3: An employee commits fraud outside of work hours and unrelated to their job. This does not fit the doctrine because the act was outside the scope of employment. Option 4: A company is sued for a competitor's fraudulent activities. This is unrelated to the employer-employee relationship and does not apply to the doctrine.