solvent, the debt falls due, lest the creditor’s right be lost. Thus, if they bring him a guarantor who owns only one thousand riyals while the debt is ten thousand, that is not sufficient, because he is not solvent in terms of wealth. Likewise, if they bring a guarantor who has abundant wealth but is prone to procrastination, such that it is extremely difficult to recover the right from him, this too is insufficient security.

If they bring a man who is wealthy, possesses assets, and is not known for procrastination, but who, if he did procrastinate, could not be brought before the court—either because he is a person of authority who cannot be summoned to court, or because he is a relative whom one would be too embarrassed to take to court, such as one’s father—then we say: this guarantor is not sufficient, so the debt falls due, lest the creditor’s right be lost.

Accordingly, if a man dies owing another person a debt that falls due after one year, and the creditor comes to demand payment from the heirs, the matter is subject to detail: if they give him an adequate pledge, or provide a solvent guarantor, the debt does not fall due. Otherwise, it falls due, and the creditor may demand his debt from the heirs.

It remains to be said: if this debt is the price of a purchased item, then usually, when a debt is the price of a sale, it will exceed the present cash price. Thus, if I sell this car today for ten thousand, I would sell it for twelve thousand, for example, if the price were deferred.

For example, a man buys a car from someone for twelve thousand, payable after one year, while its present cash price is ten thousand. He then dies on the day of purchase, and the heirs have no adequate pledge and do not provide a guarantor. The debt therefore falls due. Is the creditor entitled to take the entire debt, or only its present cash value?