Smart Partial reconcile

[TruongSinh Tran]

Let's take a case (with partner A):

Sell $100 on credit
Sell $200 on credit
Receive $150

When I check all 3 transactions there and run "partial reconciliation", OpenERP only mark it "A1 (-50)" in "Partial reconciliation". And then, if we filter unreconciled entries, all 3 appears.

What I expect is to have the 1st 2 transaction (sale transaction) marked as reconciled, and the 3rd (settlement transaction) marked as partial reconciled (remains $50). And, in future, if we have 4th and so on transaction, we can reconcile them with the remained $50 from the 3rd. Besides, when close a fiscal year and generate opening for unreconciled, the mentioned should also be $50, rather than a whole $150, or nothing ($0)

http://www.openerp.com/forum/post53947.html

[TruongSinh Tran (truongsinh-tran)]

boom!

[qdp (OpenERP) (qdp)]

Hello TruongSinh Tran,

actually i do not see the advantage(s) of the behaviour you're describing.

Currently, i find logic that
*if we filter unreconciled entries, all 3 appears: because you cannot know wich sale exactly is being paid by the settlement (let's take the same example with 2 sales of $100, reconciled with a payment of $150: is the first one totally paid and $50 remaining on the second or the contrary, or maybe it's $25 remaining on each....)

*in the end of year generating entries we will find the 3 transactions, so if you do a total per account you will see that your customer still have to pay you $50 and not more

I'm invalidating this bug untill you can convince me ^^
Quentin

[Bojan Markovic (bmarkovic)]

@qtdp

In MANY legislations it's assumed and actually prescribed BY LAW that unless payment transaction has directions as to which actual invoices are reconciled, payment reconciles the invoice that is oldest by due date (in order to protect the creditor from his receivables to be invalidated by belatement, among other reasons -- including common sense).

I see no reason for invalidating this bug as it is an issue in many accounting systems including the one in my country.

[Bojan Markovic (bmarkovic)]

I forgot to add the following (and I believe this is the case with any country whose civil/obligations code is based on German/Austrian civil code, but it seems very sane to assume this to be so pretty much the same everywhere else):

- It is in full discretion of creditor to choose which of the debtor's obligations he reconciles upon receiving settlement regardless of any eventual instruction from the debtor
- It is common practice that creditor protects his legal rights towards debt collection by reconciling obligations that are the first to become belated i.e. that are oldest by due date.
- If creditor does receive instructions as to which obligation the settlement is meant to reconcile, he can (but is not obliged to) do so, and still revert that decision in case he needs to make a debit collection claim at a trade court.

There are few legal caveats which protect debtor from unjust interest such as that upon agreement or a contract when a settlement is regarding that contract and creditor agreed to continue with the contract (and blah blah special conditions) then he cannot reconcile as he wants, but in most cases when there is a creditor-debtor relationship set, there was exchange of goods and services, and due date for payment has arrived -- the letter of law is pretty much spot on the side of creditor.

For the purpose being you can take that terms obligation = debit = invoice.

Obviously a software that facilitates financial management should provide for this practice.

[Timothy Solomon (timothy-spiraleye)]

any decision on this?