Making agreements is one thing; keeping them is another. We are much less well informed about this second aspect of the process. Individual cases did end up in courts or other dispute-settlement fora that have left records, and here we can see an enforcement mechanism at work. Such cases are, however, few and far between, and furthermore only show that certain agreements failed. What about those agreements that worked, or at least did not break down to the point where they generated a record of a dispute? How were agreements kept? The agreements themselves give indications. Some convenientiae contain simple penalty clauses, though others address the issue of guarantees at great length, as was the case in the convenientia between Berenguer Ramon I and Ermengol II of c. 1021. Parties proposed various types of real and personal sureties, and they detailed procedures to be followed in case of violations. The threat of these sanctions certainly played a role in encouraging adherence to agreements, but sanctions are, like dispute-settlement procedures, negative factors, potential consequences of a change in the status of the agreement. Other factors contributed to the maintenance of agreements in a less mechanical fashion. The oath is one such element; we must revisit its relationship to the convenientia in order to understand more fully the nature of agreements. The written word is another, for the very inscription of the convenientia on parchment was a part of the process of making sure that it would be kept.