even though it is ninety metres. We say: you have no right to rescind, because you have suffered no harm.

Another example: he bought it on the understanding that it was one hundred metres, but it proved to be one hundred and twenty. The buyer then says, “I wish to rescind the sale, because it differs from the stated measurement.” The seller replies, “You may have the extra twenty free of charge; give me only the price we agreed upon.” In that case, the buyer has no right of rescission, because he has suffered no harm.

If the buyer says, “I had planned to build a house measuring one hundred metres, but now it has become one hundred and twenty, so my material and construction costs will increase, since I would have to enlarge the masonry and the rooms,” we say to him: make it an open space. If he says, “Even if I make it an open space, the surrounding wall will cost me more,” we say: make the extra area into parking spaces or a street. Thus, he suffers no harm.

The author stipulated that the person’s purpose must be frustrated, whereas here the purpose is not frustrated.

If both parties agree upon the shortfall or surplus, that is permissible, because the right belongs to both of them. Thus, if they settle by waiving it—for example, if he says, “I sold it to you as one hundred metres, but it proved to be ninety metres,” and they agree that such-and-such an amount is to be deducted from the price—there is nothing wrong with that.

In al-Rawd (1), there is a case that may appear similar to this one, but differs from it in its ruling. It states: “If the item sold is, for example, a heap—that is, a pile of food—sold as being ten measures, but it proves to be less or more, the sale is valid and there is no right of rescission. The surplus belongs to the seller, and the shortfall is borne by him.”

That is, he has a pile of food and says, “I sold you this heap as being one hundred kilograms,” but it proves to be less than one hundred—namely, ninety kilograms. We say: the sale is valid.