You have already heard in its rightful place, where we spoke of the 15-year truce that was signed between Portugal and Castile, how all its strength lay in three things, in accordance with the framing of the pacts, namely in the delivery of prisoners, in the compensation for damages and in the seizure one of the parties could make of the property belonging to the other, should the latter be negligent in fulfilling those procedures. Also, how through bad faith and unjustly many Portuguese prisoners were detained and not returned, and no damages were compensated for.

The King of Portugal, having been advised on these matters, deemed that not only could he seize the King of Castile's property for such reasons, but also, because the latter had promised to release the prisoners and had not done so, and considering that he was therefore guilty of the offence which the Portuguese prisoners had received from him in this matter, he, the King of Portugal, as their liege lord, could make that accusation before whoever had the power to judge it.

Since the King of Castile had no one higher than himself who could judge the matter, the King of Portugal could justifiably wage war against him and with all the more reason seize his property, which was the very least action he could take. If ever the Castilians should wish to claim that a city or town had been taken by unfair means on the grounds that it infringed the clause of the treaties stating that, ‘while the terms of the truce so last, the King of Portugal shall not by himself or through a third party take or steal a city, town or castle, village, area of land or any other thing belonging to the kingdoms of Castile or their subjects’, the Portuguese would reply with another clause where the release of prisoners was mentioned, and where it stipulated that, should one of the kings be found negligent in this matter, his adversary could seize of his property and that of his subjects, to the value determined in the agreements made between them.