The first: if the price is a specified item, the ruling is that a trustworthy third party should be appointed to receive the price from the buyer and the item sold from the seller, and then hand over the item sold and thereafter the price.

The second: if the price is an immediately due debt—that is, not a specified item—and the buyer is present at the session, the seller is compelled first, and then the buyer second.

The third: if the price is absent but within the town, the buyer is restrained from disposing of the item sold and the rest of his property until he produces it.

The fourth: if it is far from the town, the seller has the right to rescind.

There is a fifth scenario: where the price is deferred. In that case, the seller is compelled to hand over the item sold and to wait until the term falls due, because he entered into the transaction with full knowledge.

This is the detailed ruling when each of the two parties refuses to hand over what is in his possession.

The sounder view in this issue is that the seller may retain the item sold until its price is paid. Thus, he may say: “Yes, I sold it to you, but I do not feel secure that you may flee, fail to pay me in full, delay payment, or the like. So I will keep it in my possession until you hand over the price.” This view is the only one by which practice can be maintained and people’s affairs kept in order. The scenarios mentioned by the author impose hardship upon people. If we suppose that a court has one hundred cases before it and completes two cases each day, then he would have to wait fifty days before the judge is told: “Appoint a trustworthy third party to receive from both of them.” People’s affairs cannot be properly managed in this way. The correct view, therefore, is that when each party refuses to hand over what is in his possession, the seller may retain the item sold.