never strictly defines them. Similarly, the term (law in accordance with proper order) occurs in some places, and even in the titles of certain texts. The laws tell stories of how truth could apparently cure a person and falsehood could cause blisters. These were two very real concepts to the jurists and the value of a given judgment with respect to them was apparently ascertainable. McLeod has also suggested that most of the specific laws mentioned have passed the test of time and thus their truth has been confirmed, while other provisions are justified in other ways because they are younger and have not been tested over time. Legal procedure The early Irish laws are devoid of a state-centred enforcement mechanism and at least some of the judges were outside the state apparatus. This did not mean that the laws were ineffective, rather the methods of enforcement of legal procedures worked in such a way to fit with the conditions of society. Suretyship Sureties were the prime enforcers in early Irish law. They were not government officials, but rather sureties who were appointed to enforce a contract or other legal relationship. , the law tract that deals most with sureties, offers formulaic speeches the contractors may have recited ceremonially to appoint sureties and make the sureties swear to perform their duties properly. In addition to sureties appointed for specific contracts, relatives might be expected to act as sureties in cases where they were not specifically bound. There is also evidence that most sureties were either relatives or lords of the contractor. Three types of sureties appear in Irish law. The (and in earlier texts ) refers to a surety who is expected to enforce payment from the contractor. Apparently, in standard contracts two (plural of ) were appointed by each party. The word might also refer to the "binding" of a contract. If the contractor whom he is appointed for defaults it is the s responsibility to attempt to make the contractor pay. If he does not act or does not put in sufficient effort he loses his honour price. In attempting to extract payment, the had a wide range of powers. He might distrain the contractor's property, imprison or even violently attack the contractor. Apparently, as with witnessing, someone could not be a to a contract worth more than his honour-price. The is generally referred to as a paying