Treaty Opinions

guys, while this directly relates to a situation I find myself in, I will try to not guide the responses.

You recieve an in-game treaty with the other party having signed. You sign the treaty, return treaty to other signatory and comply with terms of treaty.

Other party then wishes to make an amendment.

What would be your position

1) Original treaty is not valid despite both parties signed. Treaty valid once amendment is signed
2) Original treaty remains valid as both parties signed. An amendment is possible and supersedes original once signed by both parties

For some additional context the original treaty did contain an error but it related to the signatory's title (stated below the signature) rather than the clauses.

As an example, the Elector of Saxony signing "King of Poland and Saxony" rather than "King of Poland, Elector of Saxony"

I would think the second .Especially if it is over a wee accident about a title . If there is a signature then it is binding . The use of titles is up to the other player to get right .
The lesson could be though , only ever send a draft treaty until all the its and buts are ironed out . Sometimes I send a treaty and it says at the top " Do not Sign " then when assured of their agreement I send the treaty ready and already signed by me

as The Little Emperor, if he realised he was giving something he did not want to then he needs to sack his FM and suck it up unless you agree to the change.

Definitely #2. If you have both signed AND dated, then it's immediately in force. You can by mutual agreement amend it, but it is in force.

If the treaty is not dated, then either party can cancel at will.

I agree number 2 should be in force.

Love you Regiments name Kingmaker Tell me do your men have ego's A) because of your benevolent leadership, B) because they like their shiny buttons, or C) their ability to penetrate the noble houses Terem.

One Grain.