and then, after granting him rescission, he retracts during the session in which the rescission took place, may he do so? No, for the reason already mentioned: rescission is not a sale.

His statement, “There is no right of pre-emption,” means that no right of pre-emption applies to it. Pre-emption means that a partner takes from the person to whom his co-partner’s share has been transferred for monetary consideration.

For example, two men jointly own a piece of land, and one of them sells his share. His partner then has the right of pre-emption—that is, he may add that share to his own and take it from the purchaser compulsorily. For instance, Zayd and Amr are partners in a piece of land, and Amr sells his share to Bakr. Zayd has the right of pre-emption, but he says, “Bakr is dear to me, and I do not wish to take it through pre-emption,” and so he waives his right of pre-emption. Then Bakr comes to Amr and says, “I regret it, and I would like you to grant me rescission.” Amr grants him rescission—that is, Amr grants rescission to Bakr. May Zayd then take it from Amr through pre-emption?

The answer is: No, because rescission is a dissolution of the contract. But if Bakr were to sell it to Amr—that is, Zayd had not exercised his right of pre-emption against Bakr, and then Bakr sold it to Amr in a new sale—would Zayd have the right to take it through pre-emption?

The answer is: Yes.

Thus, the author’s statement, “There is no right of pre-emption,” means that if the purchaser, against whom the partner had waived his right of pre-emption, is granted rescission, the partner’s right of pre-emption does not return, because rescission is not a sale.