Abstract In this article the author comments on the work on accounting, evaluation and economic behavior by R.J. Chambers. The author states that many reviewers have suggested that accountants will often disagree with Chambers' postulates and definitions and will prefer alternatives that will result in entirely different conclusions to those reached by Chambers. Here the author further points out the possible inadequacies and inconsistencies within Chambers' system that have not been mentioned in the literature to date and suggests ways of overcoming them. Chambers defines financial positions as the capacity of an entity at a point of time to engage in indirect exchanges, it is represented by the relationship between the monetary properties of the means in possession and the monetary properties of the obligations of an entity. Thus Chambers acknowledges that action is not instantaneous and in respect of assets considers capacity to engage in indirect exchanges is measured by market resale prices in the short-run.
Errol R. Iselin (Mon,) studied this question.