it has already been explained that if he had sold it to him in exchange for an asset from his property, the sale would not have been valid. If he subsequently learns that he is under restriction, we say to him: “Take back your property; you suffer no loss,” because a transaction with him after the restriction has been imposed is not effective. Even if this person under restriction had used it for two, three, or more days, it is sufficient for you that the very item of your property be returned to you.

An example of this is a man who sells a car to this person under restriction for fifty thousand, unaware that he is under restriction, and then learns of it. We say: “Take back the car, so long as you were unaware.” But if he knew, then he may not recover it; the car becomes part of the debtor’s property, to be sold and distributed among the creditors. He does not rank alongside the creditors, because this transaction took place after the debtor had been prevented from disposing of his property.

“If he enters into a transaction involving his personal liability, or acknowledges a debt or an offence entailing retaliation or financial compensation, it is valid, and he may be required to fulfil it after the restriction is lifted. The judge shall sell his property and distribute its proceeds in proportion to the debts owed to his creditors.”

His statement, “If he enters into a transaction involving his personal liability,” means that a person under restriction may not validly dispose of any specific asset of his property. Thus, if we place a man under restriction because his debts exceed what he possesses, he cannot sell anything from his property, however insignificant. He cannot sell a pen, a watch, or anything else, because the creditors’ rights are attached to his specific assets. However, there is no objection if he enters into a transaction involving his personal liability. This means that if he borrows something from someone, there is no problem. If this man upon whom we have imposed restriction needs money and borrows it from someone else, there is no objection.

If he owes debts amounting to ten thousand while the property he possesses is worth eight thousand, we place him under restriction and he may not dispose of his property. Yet if he borrows money from someone, the loan is valid, because he has not disposed of the property regarding which we placed him under restriction; rather, he has entered into a transaction involving his personal liability. Likewise, if he buys something, but does not buy it with a specific asset of his property—for example, if he buys a house or a car from someone—there is no objection, because the restriction imposed upon him