De transactionibus axiomata

LV.
Regarding a settlement confirmed by an oath, the law has been constituted such that if the plaintiff acts contrary to it, he is noted with infamy, loses the action he had regarding the matter, pays the promised penalty if he acted contrary, and restores what was given by reason of the settlement.

LVI.
By equal reasoning, if the defendant acts against a sworn settlement, he is noted with infamy, performs the promised penalty, and can no longer defend himself by the settlement.

LVII.
But the constitution coerces with so many penalties only those who have thought that one should act against pacts and settlements sworn with free will and desire, without any empire compelling them, not those who settled while compelled by fear or circumvented by fraud.

LVIII.
All agree on this: that he who seeks absolution from an oath interposed over a settlement does not fall into these penalties; which, however, should not be granted except for just causes. Hence, by the sanctions of Emperor Charles V and his brother Ferdinand Caesar in the Imperial Diet of Augsburg, and by the approval of the Estates of the Empire, it was related to the Imperial Chamber's ordinance that a citation to see oneself released from an oath by the judges of the Chamber should not be decreed except after a full information of the fact has been received, and that oaths of conventions should not be released for the purpose of acting without a prior cognition of the cause.