and it then becomes clear that the person upon whom the transfer was made is insolvent, he may not recover it. This issue has three cases:

The first case: the transferee did not consent. For example, the transferor says to the transferee, “I have transferred you to so-and-so, who is insolvent and has no money,” and he replies, “I do not accept.” In this case, he may recover it without any disagreement. This is because, for a transferee to be transferred to someone who is not solvent, his consent is a condition; here, he did not consent, so he may recover it without disagreement.

The second case: he knows that the person is insolvent and consents to that. In this case, he may not recover it, without any disagreement, because he accepted him and therefore may not recover it.

The third case: he consents while unaware of his condition, and then it becomes clear that he is insolvent. According to the author’s wording, he may not recover it, because he restricted recovery to the case in which the transferee had not consented, whereas this man did consent.

If the transferee says, “I consented because I thought that so-and-so was wealthy, but now that it has become clear that he is insolvent, I want to return to the one who transferred me and take my due from him,”

we say: You have no right of recovery, because you were negligent. Why did you not stipulate solvency when he transferred you, while you did not know the condition of the person upon whom the transfer was made?

It is therefore said: Since you did not stipulate it, you were the negligent party, and you have no right of recovery.

Thus, there are three cases: two concerning which there is no disagreement, and one in which there is further detail.