As for the view that the two parties swear reciprocal oaths, the correct position is that it is not necessary to combine negation and affirmation. What is intended is merely to deny what the other party claims, or to affirm what one himself claims. This is achieved by stating the negation alone or the affirmation alone; combining the two is not required. This too is stronger than the view that combining them is obligatory, because the purpose of wording is to convey meanings. Once the meaning is clear, any form of expression is sufficient. Thus, according to the stronger view, combining the two is not stipulated. Rather, we say: if he affirms his claim, that suffices—whether he expresses it restrictively, saying, “By Allah, I sold it only for such-and-such,” or says, “By Allah, I sold it for one hundred.”

Even if we hold that both negation and affirmation are to be combined, the stronger view is still that the negation need not come first. Thus, if he says, “By Allah, I sold it for one hundred, and I did not sell it for eighty,” that suffices, because the intended purpose has been achieved.

If they reverse the order, so that the buyer begins first and then the seller, we say: the buyer must repeat his oath, because the order is necessary, as the text states: “The seller swears first.”

It has also been said that order is not stipulated, and that if the buyer begins first, his oath is valid, because the intended purpose has been achieved.

It has also been said that the claimant begins. Thus, for example, if the buyer says, “I purchased it for such-and-such,” before the seller claims against him that he sold it for such-and-such, then the buyer is given precedence.

What appears correct, based on the general principle that “what matters in wording is