The second opinion is that this is not valid, and that this seller is to be regarded like a usurper who disposes of another person’s property. For rescinding the contract in principle would be an injustice, since in this case the buyer’s statement is the true one; yet the seller wronged him by claiming a price greater than the actual price in order to recover the commodity.
“If they differ over a deferred term or a condition, the statement of the one who denies it is accepted. If they differ over the identity of the item sold, they must both swear oaths, and the sale is rescinded.”
His statement: “If they differ over a deferred term or a condition, the statement of the one who denies it is accepted.” An example of their differing over a deferred term is where the seller says: “I sold you this item for immediate payment, not on deferred terms,” while the buyer says: “Rather, you sold it to me on deferred terms.” In that case, the seller’s statement is accepted—that is, the statement of the one who denies it—and the buyer is required to pay immediately, because the default assumption is that there is no deferment. This is why the statement of the one who denies it is accepted.
Likewise, if they differ over the length of the deferred term, the statement of the one who denies the additional period is accepted. That is, they agree that the price is deferred, but the seller says: “It is deferred for six months,” while the buyer says: “It is deferred for one year.” The seller’s statement is accepted, because the default assumption is that there is no additional period. They agree on six months and differ regarding what exceeds that, while the default assumption is that there is no increase.
If someone were to ask: Can circumstantial evidence be considered in this case? That is, if this commodity would cost one hundred for immediate payment, but two hundred if payment were deferred for two years or more, while the price in this case is two hundred, and the buyer says that it is deferred whereas the seller says that it is not deferred—then the default principle supports the seller, because the statement of the one who denies it is accepted.
However, if circumstantial evidence supports the statement of one of them, then his statement is accepted.
For example, this commodity is worth one hundred in the market, but if the price is