Eh ... not quite.

First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.

A declaration is not a contract. It is, what we call: a missive. Just to give closure on certain matters.

The oath within the declaration only binds those ascending to it initially only the signers and those in whose name they sign if and when properly authorized.

In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty. There is a lie in there: as it says: plenipotentiary.

They are not, as they cannot conclude a deal. The deal has to be ratified by the senate.

That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.

Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.

Eh ... not quite.

First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.

In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty.

That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.

Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.