Whether a duty of restitution applies to the acts of kings as such

The promises, contracts, and oaths of kings, and of others who like them hold the chief power in the state, present peculiar questions in regard to what is permitted to them as regards their own acts; also, what is permitted to them in relation to their subjects and in regard to their successors.

As regards the first point, the question is whether a king can restore to himself his rights in full, as he can restore those of his subjects, or can make a contract void, or can absolve himself from an oath. Bodin is of the opinion that a king who has been overreached by the fraud or deceit of another, or induced by error or fear, can be restored to his original rights for the same reasons that a subject would be restored, not only in matters which pertain to the rights of sovereignty, but also in matters which relate to his private affairs. He adds that a king is not even bound by an oath if the agreements are of a kind from which the law permits withdrawal, even though [the oaths in question] are consistent with honour; he is not, in fact, bound because he has taken oath, but because everyone is bound by just agreements, in so far as another has an interest therein.