If someone were to ask: How can you give him the choice between rescinding the sale and affirming it, when the fruit belongs to him and was destroyed while in his ownership? If it is destroyed, then let him claim compensation from the one who destroyed it.
We would say: This is a valid and pertinent question. However, since the fruit is under the seller’s liability, he is responsible for preserving and guarding it. It is thus as though he was negligent in this regard, until a person came and destroyed it. Therefore, it is sound to say to the purchaser: If you wish, rescind the sale; for although the fruit belongs to you, the purchaser, it remains under the seller’s liability. This is the basis for it.
Yet, if it were said that he is not entitled to rescission, that too would have merit, because in reality the fruit was destroyed while in his ownership, and it is possible to seek compensation from the destroyer; thus, he does not have recourse against the seller. Yes, if it becomes clear that the seller was negligent—as mentioned previously, such as when he saw a man climb the tree to pluck the fruit—then we would say that the view that the purchaser is given the choice between rescission and affirming the sale while claiming compensation from the destroyer is a sound view.
His statement, “The ripening of part of a tree constitutes ripening for that tree and for the rest of the same type of fruit in the orchard”: An example is an orchard containing varieties of dates such as Sukkari, Barhi, and Umm Hammam. If ripening appears on one Barhi tree, the author says that the ripening of this tree constitutes ripening for it and for the rest of the Barhi variety. As for the Sukkari and Umm Hammam, the ripening of the Barhi tree does not constitute ripening for them, because they are different varieties.
The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this applies whether the entire variety is sold together or sold separately: for example, if we sell the tree whose fruit has ripened and its ownership passes to the purchaser, then sell the remainder of its variety to others, all of this is valid, where he states