Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/520)

The first is that the slave can no longer be returned.
The second is that he remains available for return.

Section

If the slave can no longer be returned, there are three possible cases:
The first is that he was sold for immediate payment, and the seller received the price.
The second is that he was sold for immediate payment, but the seller did not receive the price.
The third is that he was sold on deferred payment.

If the seller sold him for immediate payment and received the price, and the buyer subsequently discovers a defect after the slave can no longer be returned, the seller may settle with him for dinars, dirhams, or goods delivered immediately, once both parties know the amount of compensation due for the defect. This is because the portion of the price paid that corresponds to the defect has become a debt owed by the seller to the buyer. The buyer may therefore sell that claim for whatever consideration he wishes, provided he receives it immediately. The seller may not, however, settle with him for dirhams payable at a future date if the sale was for dinars, nor for goods deliverable at a future date. In the case of goods, this would involve replacing one debt with another deferred debt; in the case of dirhams, it would involve deferred currency exchange. If he settles with him for dinars payable at a future date, this is permissible only if their amount equals or falls below the compensation due for the defect. If it exceeds that amount, it is impermissible.

Section

If the buyer has not paid the price when he discovers the defect, the seller may settle with him for a specific item of merchandise that he delivers, or for goods specified by description, deliverable at a future date permissible in an advance-payment sale. Settlement for dirhams is not permissible, whether payable immediately or at a future date, unless the exchange takes place hand to hand, as in currency exchange. As for settlement in gold, I know of no explicit transmitted ruling on the matter. In my judgment, legal reasoning requires that, according to Mālik’s school, it be permissible only through a weight-for-weight exchange, with one pan of the scales balanced against the other, after both parties have ascertained the compensation due for the defect and arrived at closely matching assessments of it.

أحدهما: أن يكون العبد فائتا. والثاني: أن يكون قائما. فصل فأما إن كان فائتا فلا يخلو الأمر من ثلاثة أوجه: أحدها: أن يكون باعه بنقد فانتقد. والثاني: أن يكون باعه بنقد فلم ينتقد. والثالث: أن يكون باعه إلى أجل. فأما إذا باعه بنقد وانتقد ثم وجد المبتاع به عيبا بعد فواته، فجائز للبائع أن يصالحه على دنانير أو دراهم أو عروض نقدا بعد معرفتهما بقيمة العيب؛ لأن قيمة العيب من الثمن الذي نقد، قد وجبت للمبتاع قبل البائع فجائز له أن يبيعها بما شاء إذا تعجل، ولا يجوز له أن يصالحه على دراهم إلى أجل - إن كان البيع بدنانير، ولا على عروض إلى أجل لأنه يدخله في العروض فسخ الدين في الدين، وفي الدراهم الصرف المتأخر؛ وإن صالحه على دنانير إلى أجل لم يجز إلا أن يكون مثل قيمة العيب فأقل، فإن كانت أكثر من قيمته فلا يجوز. فصل وأما إن لم ينقد الثمن حتى اطلع على العيب فجائز للبائع أن يصالحه على عرض معين يدفعه، أو موصوف إلى أجل يجوز إليه السلم، ولا يجوز بدراهم نقدا ولا إلى أجل، إلا أن يكون يدا بيد مثل الصرف وأما بالذهب فلا أعرف في ذلك نص رواية والنظر يوجب - عندي ألا يجوز على مذهب مالك إلا مراطلة كفة بكفة بعد معرفتهما بقيمة العيب وتقاربهما عليه.