on 23-07-2018 01:08 PM
We just had this request come in and wondering what everyone's thoughts are, we think statement of settlement should equal the vendor destination line items - so basically the two balances should be mandatory to match.
Basically - the amount due on the statement of adjustments - should be all included under the vendor destination line items. Once you have that - you should not be able to add more because they don't match. and there shouldn't be the ability for balance due to the vendor to be put into purchaser destination line items.
on 24-07-2018 11:30 PM
I like the way you are thinking and that's a great suggestion. Matching the 'Balance due to the Vendor' field and the 'Total Vendor Destination' field would make sure that the Vendor totals up the Vendor's destinations correctly.
One issue I see with this though is...............What if the Vendor chooses to add the deposit into the workspace to distribute at settlement? The total amount of the Vendor destinations will then exceed the 'Balance due to Vendor' amount. Though this could be fixed by adding a few new fields as follows:
(Balance due to Vendor field) + (Vendor Source Funds/deposit field) = (Total amount owing to Vendor field)
That way the new 'Total amount owing to Vendor' field could be matched with the 'Vendor Total Destinations' field.
What do you think?
on 25-07-2018 07:33 AM
This was a request from our lovely staff member Maria, so ill pass on your message and come back to you shortly.