The first: if he knows that the person upon whom the transfer was made is insolvent and consents, then he has no right of recovery—without any disagreement.

The second: if he does not consent and the person upon whom the transfer was made is insolvent, then he may recover in all cases.

The third: if he consents without knowing the condition of the person upon whom the transfer was made, and it then becomes clear that he is insolvent, the author says that he may not recover, because he was negligent. Why did he not stipulate that the person upon whom the transfer was made be solvent when he was unaware of his condition?

It has also been said that he may recover in this case, because many people may feel embarrassed to inquire further or to stipulate solvency at the time of the transfer. They think well of the transferor and of the person upon whom the transfer is made, and remain silent. Then, if it becomes clear that he is insolvent, they may recover—especially if it is most likely that the transferor deceived him, knowing that the person upon whom the transfer was made was insolvent but failing to inform him. In that case, the view that he may recover is compelling.

Likewise, if the condition of the person upon whom the transfer was made had been sound—he had been wealthy the day before—and the transferee accepted the transfer without stipulating solvency, relying on his condition and wealth, then it becomes clear that he has been struck by a calamity and that payment cannot be recovered from him, then the view that the transferee may recover is compelling. This is because the transferee accepted only on the basis of the person’s previous condition.

It is now clear what the author held. The stronger view contains further detail: if we know that the transferor deceived the transferee, such that he knew of the insolvency of the person upon whom the transfer was made but did not inform him, or if the transferee relied on