be valid. The difference between the seller and the purchaser is that ownership has passed to the purchaser, whereas the seller has no ownership in the item sold. Hence, the purchaser’s emancipation is valid, unlike the seller’s.

His statement, “The purchaser’s disposal is a rescission of his option,” means that if the purchaser disposes of an item sold in which he alone stipulated an option, his disposal constitutes a rescission of his option. The scholars’ statements here indicate that rescission is established by anything that signifies it, whether words or actions.

For example, a man purchases a house from someone and stipulates an option for one month. During that month, he leases it to someone to live in; his option is then nullified. If he says, “I did not nullify the option,” we say: Your disposal is evidence that you are satisfied with it and that you have waived the option. Similarly, if he purchases this house for one hundred thousand while stipulating an option for himself for one month, then someone comes to him and says, “Sell it to me for one hundred and ten,” and he sells it for one hundred and ten, his option is nullified by his disposal of the house. His disposal of it indicates that he is satisfied with it and does not wish to return it.

An exception to this is the previously mentioned case of testing the item sold. If the purchaser’s disposal consists of testing the item, it does not rescind his option, even if the option belongs to him alone, because this is the purpose of the condition: to determine whether it is suitable for him or not.

His statement, “The purchaser’s disposal is a rescission of his option,” apparently indicates that the seller’s disposal does not rescind the purchaser’s option, because the purchaser’s right remains intact.