lent it to you for use,” while the one in possession says, “Rather, it was rented.” One might ask here: How can the one in possession claim that it was rented, while the owner claims that it was a loan for use? We reply: Yes; if it has perished, it is more advantageous for the owner to say, “It was a loan for use,” because the borrower is then liable for it whether he transgressed, was negligent, or neither transgressed nor was negligent. But if it is established that it was rented, he is liable only in the event of transgression or negligence.

“If the one in possession says, ‘You lent it to me for use,’ or says, ‘You rented it to me,’ and the owner says, ‘Rather, you usurped it from me’; or if the owner says, ‘I lent it to you for use,’ and the other says, ‘Rather, you rented it to me,’ and the animal has perished; or if they disagree over its return, then the owner’s statement is accepted.”

His statement, “If [the one in possession] says,” refers to the one in whose possession it is.

His statement, “You lent it to me for use,” or, “You rented it to me,” and the owner says, “Rather, you usurped it from me,” means: “You took it from me by usurpation.” The author says that the owner’s statement—that it was usurped—is accepted. The owner claims that it was usurped so that the usurper will be liable for both the usufruct and the property itself. For if he were a lender, the usufruct would not be subject to liability for the one in possession; and if he were a lessor, the usufruct would likewise belong to the lessee and would be compensated through the rent, which he has paid. However, if the property itself perished without transgression or negligence, the lessee would not be liable for it. The usurper, on the other hand, is liable whether he transgressed, was negligent, or neither transgressed nor was negligent. He is liable for the property itself, its usufruct, and every diminution resulting from the usurpation.

His statement, “Or if [the owner] says,” refers to the owner.

His statement, “I lent it to you for use,” and the other says, “Rather, you rented it to me,” and the animal has perished, means that the owner’s statement is accepted in the case of rental even if the animal has not perished. Thus, if the owner says, “I lent it to you for use,” and the one in possession says, “Rather, you rented it to me,” while the animal has perished, then if it is established that it was a loan for use, the borrower is liable for it whether he was negligent or not. This is the position of the school. But if it was a rental, he is not liable if he neither transgressed nor was negligent. Thus, the author says that the owner’s statement is accepted