he outpaces him with his horse over part of the course, or strikes more targets with his arrows, then the one who is ahead may annul the contract, whereas the one who is behind may not. Were we to allow the inferior contestant to withdraw, the very purpose of the race would be lost: the intended benefit would not be attained, and every participant who saw himself about to lose would cancel the agreement (1).

The Shāfiʿīs state: if we maintain that the contract is permissible but not binding, then as for the right of the disadvantaged party to rescind, there are two opinions.

Sub-issue
If one of the contracting parties dies: on the view that the contract is non-binding (2), it is nullified by his death, by analogy with all other optional contracts such as agency, partnership, muḍāraba, and the like.

If, however, we hold that the contract is binding, it is not dissolved by the death of either rider, nor by the destruction of one of the two bows; it is dissolved only by the death of either mount or either archer. The reason is that the contract is tied to the very mounts and archers themselves; therefore it lapses when any of them is lost, just as a lease lapses when the leased object is destroyed. This differs from the death of the rider or the breaking of the bow, for these are not the subject-matter of the contract (3). Accordingly, the contract is not annulled by their loss, just as the death of one of the parties to a sale does not revoke the sale. Hence it is permissible to substitute another bow or rider, but it is not permissible to substitute another horse or archer.