and produces evidence, then two thousand is established against the buyer, by virtue of the seller’s claim having been proven through witnesses.

What remains is whether that which is established against the buyer is also established against the claimant of pre-emption. Do we say that the claimant of pre-emption must pay two thousand, or do we say that he is liable only for what the buyer admitted—namely, one thousand? The author says: “If he says, ‘I bought it for one thousand,’ the claimant of pre-emption takes it for that amount, even if the seller establishes a higher price.” Why? Because when the seller proves through witnesses—that is, through legal evidence—that it was sold for two thousand, the buyer is bound by what the evidence establishes. As for the claimant of pre-emption, he says: “I am liable only for what the buyer has admitted. The buyer admitted that it was one thousand, so I am not liable for more than what he admitted. How can he make me pay two thousand when he says that he bought it for one thousand?”

Thus, we have two rights:

First: the seller’s right against the buyer, which has been established as two thousand.

Second: the buyer’s right against the claimant of pre-emption, which has been established as one thousand by the buyer’s admission. Here, the rulings differ because their underlying causes differ.

But if the buyer says, “I forgot,” or, “I made a mistake,” or, “I am a man who does not personally manage his trade; my business is in the hands of my workers, so I thought it was one thousand and therefore said one thousand,” is his statement accepted in this case or not? It is not accepted. He is told: “Your mistake is to your own account, your ignorance is to your own account, and your forgetfulness is to your own account. We do not accept your statement. There is no excuse for one who has made an admission.” This is the well-known position of the madhhab: he is held to his admission, even if evidence establishes that the sale was for more than he admitted. The second opinion is that, if evidence establishes that it was for more, then it must be acted upon. This is the view to which the heart is inclined, because forgetfulness and mistakes may indeed occur.