Our teacher in taxation and legal ethics have repeatedly reminded us to make a complete opening sentence argument.

This is a classical example of a bar answer:

“No, Bank B is incorrrect under the Independence principle.

Independence principle pursuant to a Letter of Credit transac-

tion provides that (in this clause you either provide GREG opener on

legal issue which is classified as the ground requisite, exception,                     general rule provision) VALIDITY OF CONTRACT OF SALE IS

INDEPENDENT TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE BANK UNDER THE

LETTER OF CREDIT.

 

In the present case, (insert connective word which emphasizes affirmation or negation to the GREG opener. Since the GREG above is in the nature of a general statement or the general rule, then affirm the facts) THE CONTRACT BETWEEN A AND B IS INDEPENDENT UPON THE OBLIGATION OF THE BANK TO RELEASE THE GOODS SUBJECT OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT. THUS, (here you close by a qualifier statement) BANK SHOULD RELEASE THE GOODS TO A.

 

How examiners will point the essay above:

The GREG Opener constitute half of the total points. The connective premise and closing statement are 1/3 apiece.

THe reason most of examinees fail is because of lame presentation of the GREG opener. The legal issue of the problem would always revolve on the governing text of the law, which has four (4) essential structure: The Ground provision or a statement which justifies certain act or judgement, or Requisite provision which follows a strict chain of reasoning based on the requisites involved, and the General rule/principle which is a statement widely respected and given more weight unless any exception clause applies.

Good luck!