PRINTABLE SEMINAR WORKSHEET
Evidence, inference and the missing mandate
Companion to Albert Tan Sin Hon, Insurance-Backed Offshore Liquidity (University of Groningen Press, 2026).
Print from your browser for a writing worksheet. The layout begins the concluding opinion on a new page. No answer is submitted or stored.
The fictional file
Assume the following records are authentic for this classroom exercise. Their legal effect remains to be analysed. No governing-law rule establishing ownership of the proceeds is supplied.
- Record A, 3 March: an insurer’s receipt records Mira’s premium payment for a policy naming Mira as policyholder.
- Record B, 18 June: a signed facility names Aster Ltd as borrower. It refers to security over Mira’s policy.
- Record C, 20 June: Aster Ltd’s account statement records a facility credit.
- Record D, 21 June: an adviser’s email says, “Mira can spend the credit because she provided the security.”
The security instrument, company board records and account mandate are absent. The file does not show how the credit was used.
Separate the records
Legal position: identify one actor, capacity, instrument and relevant date. State the limit of the supplied evidence.
Value movement: identify the movement that Record C evidences. State one proprietary conclusion that it does not decide by itself.
Institutional information: distinguish what a record says from who is shown to possess or verify it.
Reading: Chapter 1, section 1.4, printed pp. 36–37; section 1.6, pp. 40–41. Open the publisher’s source.
TEST THE PROPOSITION
What could support the adviser’s claim?
Proposition: rewrite Record D as a precise assertion about a person, capacity, asset, power and date.
Evidence and rule: name two missing records or facts, their likely holders, and the legal question each could resolve. Identify the rule that would still need to be established.
Counter-evidence: give one possible fact that would undermine the asserted route to spending the credit.
Qualified opinion: write up to 100 words separating what the file supports, what remains open and what further record or legal event would justify review. Name the relevant decision-maker or authority issue.
Reading: Chapter 1, sections 1.7–1.9, printed pp. 48–51. Open the publisher’s source. Printed page n corresponds to PDF page n + 2 in the inspected edition.
Book DOI: 10.21827/6ac3948159a9e. Legal cut-off: 1 August 2026. The task tests the edition’s analytical method and supplies no advice on a real transaction.