the previous financial condition of the person upon whom the transfer was made—such as where he had been wealthy and then his wealth was wiped out—then he may recover. Otherwise, the view adopted by the author is sound, because the transferee was negligent: he should have asked and investigated the condition of the person upon whom the transfer was made, or at least stipulated at the time of the transfer that he be solvent.

His statement: “If someone is transferred the price of a sale, or the price is transferred to him, and the sale is then found to be invalid, then there is no valid transfer. But if the sale is rescinded, the transfer is not invalidated.”

In the first scenario, we have three parties: a seller, a buyer, and the person upon whom the transfer is made. The one to whom the price of the sold item is transferred is the seller. That is, the buyer transfers the seller to a debtor of his, and the seller accepts the transfer; but it then becomes clear that the sale was invalid. The transfer is consequently invalid, because whatever is built upon an invalid basis is itself invalid.

For example, Abd al-Rahman buys a book from al-Tahir for ten riyals. Abd al-Rahman then transfers al-Tahir to Sami, because Sami owes him a debt. It then becomes clear that the sale is invalid because the book is an endowment property, and endowment property may not be sold. In this case, the transfer is invalidated, and the seller reclaims the sold item from the buyer. Here, that is al-Tahir: he takes back his book, and the matter is settled.

But if the sale is rescinded, the transfer is not invalidated. For example, after Abd al-Rahman buys the book from al-Tahir, he finds a defect in it and returns it because of that defect. This is a rescission of the contract, so the transfer is not invalidated. Al-Tahir may demand the price from Sami, because the debt was transferred to him; thus, he may demand it from him. But once he receives it, he must return it to the buyer, Abd al-Rahman, because the contract has been rescinded.