than the terms “very best” and “very worst.” For when the purchaser receives from the seller what they agreed upon in the sale contract, he may say, “This is not good; it is inferior,” while the other says, “It is good,” and thus a dispute arises. Nevertheless, they said that this is valid, because these descriptions can be sufficiently determined; and if they disagree as to whether it is good or inferior, the matter is referred to experts.

His statement, “If he brings what was stipulated,” means either good-quality or inferior-quality goods.

The subject of “if he brings” refers to the seller, while “what was stipulated” means what the purchaser stipulated. The purchaser must accept it.

His statement, “or something better of the same type,” means that the stipulated commodity was medium-quality dates. Then, when the delivery date falls due, the seller brings good-quality dates. The purchaser says, “Our agreement was for medium-quality dates, but now you have brought me good-quality dates, and I will not accept them.” Here, the author says that he must accept them.

If the purchaser says, “How can you compel me to accept a gift without my consent?”

We reply: This seller has not brought you an additional quantity. That is, if he owes one hundred saʿ measures, he has not brought two hundred; rather, he has brought an improvement in quality. What was stipulated was medium quality, but he brought good quality. He has not brought more than what was due from him. This amounts to a gift of an additional quality, so you must accept it, just as we said that the person released from an obligation need not give his consent. Thus, he must accept it.

His statement, “of the same type,” means something better of the same type. So, if the salam sale was for Sukkarī dates and he brought Barḥī dates—and Barḥī dates are more valuable than Sukkarī dates—must he accept them?