Since there are three parties to the agreement and mediation, only one party signs it, which means only one party agrees. However, the wishes of the other two political parties have not been reflected. If only one party agrees, how can a tripartite agreement be considered valid?

If the compensation agreement signed by both parties is legal and voluntary, it has legal effect. If the other party wants to change the agreement, both parties need to reach an agreement through consultation, otherwise neither party may violate the agreement.

It has not yet entered into force and needs to be signed by all parties.

According to the law, if this signature is to take effect, it should be valid if the consenter agrees and signs it voluntarily on the premise of knowing the content. However, this label has content and signature in form. As long as the content does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and does not harm the public interest, it is legally binding.

The consultant wants to prove the sequence of signature and content, that is, the signature comes first, then the content. I know nothing about the content, so it is invalid. This view is extremely difficult to get the support of the court.