Column order matters.  Set the quantity before the new cost.

Thanks, Kevin. Gave that a try, no luck. Funny thing, the correct cost shows in the Job Log, but when you go to the data entry screen, the old cost appears.

Try doing what you want using the Sage data entry screen.  It seems to be overridden by the business object.  As soon as you choose an existing serial#, the unit cost of that serial # is written back to the line.  However, after that, I was able to set the unit price and it posted OK.  (IA transactions are different from everything else in how costs work, which make things less than intuitive).

So, try setting the cost after your LL. fields.

Hi, Kevin

I noticed the behavior in the UI screen, and duplicated your result with overwriting the cost in the UI screen and posting.

Put the UnitCost last in the Field Name list, and still got the old cost. IA certainly IS different! I'd post my exported VI definition, if I could figure out how.

Thanks!

Here's what we found out. VI can't update an existing cost tier with a new cost. What we did was to use an Inventory Transaction receipt to update the cost. Still needed to fix the GL for the offset accounts, but that was easy.

Steve

The one major issue I see is that you are trying to raise the cost of a serialized item.  Generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP require that a manufacturer's financial statements comply with the cost principle. The cost principle requires that assets be recorded at the cash amount (or the equivalent) at the time that an asset is acquired. So basically you are violating GAAP rules and you would fail an audit.

That being said, why are you changing the cost of a serialized item?

(Excellent points BigLouie... my assumption was to correct bad numbers / a typo during the receipt, not an actual valuation change).

One thing to remember is that if the cost was wrong when the item was received then you need to reverse the transaction and change the purchase order and bring in at correct price. DO NOT change the price of the serialized item because the vendor might have changed the price for future purchases.  That violates accounting rules as mentioned.

Thanks, BL. It was to correct a typo on the PO. For various reasons, we couldn't do a return/re-receipt, and had to go with this approach. BTW, we were invoiced at the correct amount.