Sub-section:
If a person buys two defective slaves in a single transaction, he may rescind and return them both. Should a defect appear in only one of them, he may—according to the sounder view—return them both or confine the rescission to the one that is defective. If a slave jointly owned by two men is sold and proves defective, the buyer may return the share of either partner; and if two purchasers buy a defective slave, each of them, in the stronger opinion, may exercise the right of return.

If the parties differ over whether the defect pre-dated the sale, the seller is believed on oath, in accordance with the form of his reply. Any inseparable increase, such as additional fat, follows the principal item; separable increases, such as an offspring or rental income, do not bar rescission and belong to the buyer when he rescinds after taking possession—and, in the sounder view, even if he rescinds before taking possession. If the seller had sold her while she was pregnant and she later gave birth, then—according to the preponderant opinion—she is to be returned along with her newborn.

Use of the item, intercourse with a non-virgin slave-girl, or the defloration of a virgin after possession does not preclude rescission, though they are treated as diminutions that have arisen in the interim; if the defloration occurred before the buyer took possession, it is deemed a tort committed against the merchandise prior to delivery.

Section
Withholding a lactating animal’s milk (taṣrīyah) is forbidden and immediately confers a right of option, although another view extends that option for three days. If the buyer returns the animal after the milk has perished or been consumed, he must return with it one sāʿ of dates; another opinion permits a sāʿ of any staple grain. The sounder position is that the measure of the sāʿ is fixed regardless of how much milk was withheld, and that this option is not confined to camels, cattle, and sheep: it encompasses every edible animal, as well as a female slave or a she-donkey, and nothing is returned with either of the latter—though there is a contrary view concerning the female slave.

Likewise, holding back the water of an irrigation canal, preventing a water-mill that normally turns on its own from running at the time of sale, rougeing the face, dyeing the hair black, or artificially curling it all establish an option for the buyer; but—according to the sounder opinion—smearing a slave’s garment with ink to create the illusion that he is literate does not.