and whose purpose is frustrated has the option. Thus, the author stipulates two conditions for the option to be established for the disadvantaged party.

For example, a person buys this plot of land on the understanding that it is one hundred metres, but it proves to be ninety metres. We say: the sale is valid, because it concerns a specified item known through inspection; only the stated measurement differs. The one responsible for the shortfall is charged in proportion to it. Thus, if he sold it for one hundred thousand, ten thousand is deducted from the price. But if the buyer says, “I had assumed that this measurement was correct, and I had planned to construct a building on it according to this area. Now that it has turned out to be smaller, I do not want it,” does he have the option?

The answer is: yes, he has the option, because his purpose has been frustrated. Since his purpose has been frustrated, we say: you have the option.

However, if the buyer knew that it was ninety metres, then he has no option, because he entered into the transaction knowingly. When the seller said that it was one hundred metres, he should have told him: “This is mistaken; rather, it is ninety metres.”

Thus, there are two conditions for possessing the right of rescission:

First: ignorance.

Second: frustration of one’s purpose.

If the buyer, who bought it on the understanding that it was one hundred metres but found it to be ninety metres, says, “I waive the ten,” and the seller says, “I want to rescind the sale, because the stated measurement has proven incorrect,” the seller does not have the right to rescind, because he now has no purpose for doing so. He sold it as one hundred metres, but it proved to be less, and the shortfall has been waived; thus, he has no purpose—except that, at times, land prices may have risen during this period, so that it is worth more than one hundred thousand,