There's a problem with providing two sets of an agreement.. For a (150 year old) real world example - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitang

There's a problem with providing two sets of an agreement.. For a (150 year old) real world example - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi The gist of it - What the Maori's thought they signed - and what the English thought they signed - were two different documents. "The English and Māori versions differ. This has made it difficult to interpret the Treaty and continues to undermine its effect. The most critical difference revolves around the interpretation of three Māori words: kāwanatanga (governorship), which is ceded to the Queen in the first article; rangatiratanga (chieftainship) which is retained by the chiefs in the second; and taonga (property or valued possessions), which the chiefs are guaranteed ownership and control of, also in the second article. Few Māori had good understanding of either sovereignty or "governorship", as understood by 19th century Europeans, and so some academics, such as Moana Jackson, question whether Māori fully understood that they were ceding sovereignty to the British Crown."