Lending oil vs non-oil resources

[Courtenay]

A trade agreement between Free France and the United States has the French lending one non-oil resource to the United States. The intent was for this to be the New Caledonian resource, the only non-oil resource Free France controls. However the Japanese ended the turn controlling the Coral Sea, preventing this from happening. MWiF instead sent Free French oil to the United States. This is incorrect, isn't it? My understanding is that when you make a trade agreement you have to specify whether you are using oil or non-oil resources, and one can not be substituted for the other.

In this stage, you can announce that you are giving resources and/or lend leasing build points (see 13.6.4) to another major power on the same side this turn. AfA option 48: (Oil) you must also announce how many of the resources given are oil

Thus, if France is supposed to send a non-oil resource to the US, but can't, nothing should happen, not France sending an oil to the US.

Is this correct?

Thank you.

[craigbear]

I think all oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil. What I mean is that only oil is specified in agreements, not the other way around. That is why the trade interface specifies total resources traded and of those, those that must be oil. That is how I would read it based on the game trading interface. As for whether thus follows the game rules...

[Centuur]

I think all oil is a resource, but not all resources are oil. What I mean is that only oil is specified in agreements, not the other way around. That is why the trade interface specifies total resources traded and of those, those that must be oil. That is how I would read it based on the game trading interface. As for whether thus follows the game rules...

Correct. If France lends a resource to the CW, it needs to deliver a resource. If it can't deliver a non-oil resource but it can deliver an oil one, that one has to be send...