Talk:Receipt/Archives/2011
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Standardisation of business receipt....
Call for standarization of business receipt.
I searched ISO website and have not found much of the information. The only closest one is the following
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cs410/present/ReSTS.ppt#268,13,References
I think the issue is very important in that it is the prerequisite for curbing corruption problem in the business world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fraud of receipt
Could the experts of commerce please let me know which section of commercial law covers the problem...???--222.67.210.32 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Within two weeks, I have encounted 4 frauds of receipts, with the average 2 frauds/week. It indicates that this is a very common and popular problem. If this discussion page allow me to post images, I'll do that to backup my point.--222.67.210.32 (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Chinese translation of the topic
is based on the following info
--222.67.208.68 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Why was the reference being removed after this version...???
The editor did not give the reason though...???
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Receipt&diff=229861776&oldid=229369367 --222.67.210.183 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The date of the warning sign published is contradictory with the one in the above --222.67.210.183 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Anti couterfeit measures.....
See my comment at Talk:Windows Genuine Advantage#Why it is necessary to define genuine product one by one--222.64.25.25 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I could be convinced, if there is an approved official registration number appeared on a receipt--222.67.203.130 (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI
--222.64.22.184 (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason for codification......
--222.64.214.91 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Although the above edition looks funny to my orginal writing.... --222.64.214.91 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)