The Seventeen Point Agreement, The Agreement of the Central People`s Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, or abbreviated the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, is the document by which the delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama, ruler of the de facto state of Tibet, reached an agreement in 1951 with the People`s Central Government of the newly created People`s Republic of China to reaffirm China Tibet`s sovereignty. Oral agreements are based on the good faith of all parties and can be difficult to prove. 7. Intellectual PropertyAs a result of reviewing all these agreements and understanding the terms and provisions contained therein, it is important that a lawyer familiar with intellectual property contracts checks these contract details from the point of view of the legality and liability of your company before they are signed. These agreements are legally binding and if you do not have a lawyer familiar with intellectual property law, we advise you to have a lawyer to check these agreements. The purpose of these agreements and contracts is to protect both parties and for your company to be able to defend an unforeseen incident that leads to litigation. Exercise caution and allow enough time to thoroughly review the agreements related to the order management system and make sure that anything the seller said would be included in the price is included. Be sure to research the best possible payment terms for the software license and maintenance agreement and use a pay for performance standard for the professional services contract. In 1951, the United States informed the Dalai Lama that in order to obtain U.S.
aid and support, he had to leave Tibet and „publicly reject the agreements reached under duress” between representatives of Tibet and China.  In 2012, the Dalai Lama mentioned that the seventeen point agreement was signed in the spirit of one country, two systems.   In his essay Hidden Tibet: History of Independence and Occupation, published by the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives in Dharamsala, S.L. Kuzmin writes that the agreement had critical flaws.  The use of new body seals instead of official government seals was not legal. Tibetan delegates overstepped their authority by signing the agreement without the agreement of the Dalai Lama and Kashag. The preamble to the agreement contained ideological stereotypes that do not correspond to reality. The Chinese government ordered the People`s Liberation Army soldiers who invaded Tibet to order the „local” government to send its people to negotiate with the Center (i.e., the central government); the parties recognized this in the preamble and in point 2, so that the agreement was signed under military threat.
The agreement was drafted in such a way that a number of concepts were ambiguous and allowed for different interpretations on the part of the Chinese and Tibetans. It also contains some internal contradictions.  This is an excellent, well-thought-out essay. I would like to add two thoughts on some of your points. First, in point 2, if, as the Manual of The Style for Contracting urges, if you avoid the tense terms „represent” and „compensate” (and thus cut out the critic) and replace them with more neutral terms such as „States” (or my preference, „confirmed”) and „will be responsible”, you yourself should, in a legal system that does not recognize specific legal categories, get the right result – and you`re there, out of your difficulty at once.. . .