The reason for this is that the right belongs to the buyer: he is the one entitled to rescind the sale. Therefore, the consent of the party against whom the rescission is exercised is not stipulated. This is like divorce, which lies in the husband’s hand: the wife’s consent is not required, nor is her presence. Thus, if he divorces his wife while she is absent, the divorce takes effect even if she does not learn of it until two or three days later, because her consent is not required. Likewise, the seller’s consent and presence are not required.

If the buyer claims that he has rescinded the sale and the seller denies it, the buyer’s statement is accepted, because this is known only from his side.

Someone may say: “The basic presumption is that no rescission has taken place; should not the seller’s statement therefore be accepted?”

The answer is that this presumption is countered by another presumption: that this matter is known only from his side. Thus, when he says, “I have rescinded it,” we accept his statement.

His statement, “If they dispute as to in whose possession the defect arose,” refers to the seller and the buyer; “whose” is interrogative. They dispute: the seller says, “The defect arose while it was with you, so you have no option to rescind,” while the buyer says, “Rather, it preceded the contract, so I have the option.”

His statement, “Then the buyer’s statement is accepted with his oath; but if only one of their claims is plausible, it is accepted without an oath.” From this issue, the author—may Allah have mercy on him—teaches us that there are two possible cases:

The first case is where one of them cannot be telling the truth. In that case, the statement of the one whose claim cannot possibly be false is accepted.