perhaps the purchaser has not prepared a place for the goods, or he wishes to harm the seller by occupying his space with the goods he sold. In that case, we say that it is at the purchaser’s risk, because he is the one who refused to take possession, which he was obliged to do.

Thus, if the seller prevents the purchaser from taking possession of what he is obliged to hand over, liability rests with the seller. Likewise, if the purchaser refuses to take possession of what he is obliged to receive, liability no longer rests with the seller, even in matters for which liability would ordinarily rest with the seller.

An example is where he sells him wheat by measure, and the seller says to him, “Take it,” but the purchaser says, “Wait.” It is then destroyed. Liability rests with the purchaser, not the seller, because the seller offered what he was obliged to provide, while the purchaser was the one who delayed and was negligent. Moreover, this may lead to harming the seller, as the sold item may be kept with him until he is harmed by its occupying his space.

Let us now return and set out these issues decisively. They are significant matters, not trivial ones. First, let us precisely establish the school’s position concerning them:

First: disposal. The purchaser may dispose of what he has bought, except in six cases: that which was sold by measure, weight, number, linear measurement, prior inspection, or description.

Second: with respect to liability, liability rests with the purchaser except in seven cases: that which was sold by measure, weight, number, linear measurement, prior inspection, or description, and fruit still on the tree. As for the eighth case—where the seller prevents him from taking possession—it is clear according to the school and otherwise. The liability in this case differs from the liability in the preceding cases, because it is liability for usurpation, meaning