Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. The legal department is about to send a formal notice asking the buyer to set out in writing its reasons for not paying. What should be done with that draft?
Stop it: asking for reasons manufactures the commercial grievance the insurer will invoke. Ask for facts, a statement of sums due, confirmation that the goods were received in conformity, the date of the transfer order given to its bank and what became of it
A debtor asked why it is not paying will answer with a conformity defect or a delivery delay, true or not, because it costs nothing and buys time: that sentence becomes the insurer's commercial dispute exclusion, and it was written at the insured's request. The proposal keeping the letter to interrupt the limitation period aims at a real and legitimate goal, and that goal is reached without asking for reasons. The one deferring the mailing works the calendar when the flaw is in the wording. The one adding an acknowledgment of debt is the reflex of a lawyer handling a solvency default, and the debtor's solvency is precisely not the question here.
Glossary entry →2. Which document establishes that the non payment has a political cause?
None on its own: it is a bundle that works by convergence, and it needs two levels, the administrative text and the trace of its application to this particular case. A central bank circular without proof that it blocked this transfer proves nothing about this file
What is covered is the CAUSE of the default, and the only party that knows it has an interest in staying silent or invoking a commercial grievance: it therefore has to be reconstructed from outside, and no single document suffices. The proposal stopping at the circular makes the commonest error, producing a rule without showing that it bit: the classification of the delivered goods is precisely arguable, so its application to this case is exactly what is missing. The one keeping the customs classification aims at the right link and assumes settled the very question in dispute. The one relying on the local agent brings valuable facts with no act of authority behind them, which makes a narrative and not proof.
Glossary entry →3. The local agent reports that in April the buyer paid its wages and two local suppliers. What is that information worth?
This is the decisive branch: showing the debtor has money. Paying local suppliers and not foreign creditors does not describe insolvency, it describes a transfer constraint, and the fact that two other European suppliers in the same sector have been unpaid since March doubles its force
This is the reversal the module teaches, and it is counterintuitive: on an ordinary unpaid debt one seeks to show the debtor is dry, here one seeks to show the opposite. A debtor solvent in local currency and defaulting in foreign currency describes exactly the covered peril. The proposal seeing a voluntary default holds commercial credit reasoning applied to political risk, which is the confusion the whole certification works on. The one calling the information neutral is right on one point, a local payment does not prove foreign currency capacity, and misses that this very mismatch is the proof. The one speaking of prior solvency reverses the order: solvency is the object of the discussion, and no precondition to it.
Glossary entry →4. The debt has been unpaid since April 12. Why does the date of gathering the evidence matter as much as its content?
Because proof perishes as the relationship cools: what can be obtained in the first month is out of reach in the fourteenth. A buyer that still answers the phone will readily confirm a factual point; one that has stopped answering, and whose lawyer has taken over the file, will confirm nothing
The evidence calendar is not the litigation calendar: it is the commercial relationship's, and it closes well before procedural deadlines. The proposal invoking the limitation period names a real risk, covered in another module, and it says nothing about the availability of documents. The one speaking of decaying probative value invents a rule of evidence that does not exist in that form. The one invoking a notification period confuses admissibility of the filing with admissibility of the evidence, and the period, where one exists, runs from knowledge of the fact, not from collection.
Glossary entry →5. The March 3 circular restricts transfers to so called essential imports, and the classification of the delivered goods is arguable. How should that weak point be handled?
By naming it and offsetting it with the other level of the bundle: the legally exact category matters little if one shows that the buyer's bank refused this transfer relying on the circular. The trace of its application to this case covers the text's weakness, and two other unpaid debts in the same sector since March cover it a second time
The bundle exists precisely for this: a weak level is offset by a strong one, and convergence beats the perfection of any single document. The proposal keeping the weak point out describes a prudence that backfires, since the insurer will find it unaided and read it as a concealment. The one waiting for a classification decision makes the filing depend on an administration with no reason to rule quickly, and lets the relationship cool meanwhile. The one switching reference authority looks for a more favorable text where what is missing is not a text but its trace.
Glossary entry →