by the second buyer from the first buyer for the excess. If it is not established that the defect existed while the item was with the first seller, and it could have arisen while it was with the first buyer—who is the second seller—the first seller may return it to the second seller, who is the first buyer. If he returns it to him, and the latter then wishes to return it to the first seller, he may not do so unless it is established that the defect existed while it was with that seller. The first seller must swear that he did not know the defect existed while it was with him, if it is a hidden defect. If it is an apparent defect, he must swear categorically, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position. If the defect could also have arisen while the item was with the first seller after he bought it from the first buyer, the first buyer, who is the second seller, must swear that he did not know the defect arose while it was with him. The first seller must then retain the slave and may not return him.

If, however, he sells it to someone else, Ibn al-Qāsim said in al-Mudawwana: “This precludes return, and he has no claim against the seller for the defect. For either he knew of the defect and sold it with that knowledge, which constitutes acceptance on his part, or he did not know of it, in which case no reduction in the price was made on account of the defect.” In Īsā’s transmission, he said: “Unless some amount is recovered from him, in which case he may recover an allowance for the defect based on the price at which he bought it.” The apparent meaning of this report is that this applies even if the allowance exceeds the amount recovered from him.

The same applies if he reduced the price on account of the defect, even though he sold it for the same price he paid or more. For example, his agent might sell it and disclose the defect, or he might sell it himself and disclose the defect, believing that it arose while the item was with him. By analogy with this report, and according to the meaning of the passage in al-Mudawwana, he would be entitled to recover the allowance for the defect, however much it amounted to.

Ibn al-Qāsim also holds, in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book, that if he sells it for less than the purchase price and makes a reduction on account of the defect, he may recover from the seller the lesser of the unrecovered balance of his original purchase price and the allowance for the defect, whichever the seller chooses; the choice belongs to the seller. According to this statement of Ibn al-Qāsim, if he sold it for the same price he paid or more, he would have no claim against the seller, even if he had reduced the price on account of the defect.

Another statement of his in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book is that, if he sells it and it subsequently becomes impossible for the second buyer to return it, and that buyer recovers an allowance for the defect from him, he may recover from his own seller the lesser of the allowance for the defect based on his own purchase price and the amount recovered from him. Its apparent meaning is that this applies even if that amount exceeds the unrecovered balance of his original purchase price. This differs from his earlier statement that, if he reduces the price on account of the defect, he may recover from the seller the lesser of the unrecovered balance of his original purchase price and the allowance for the defect. Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz did not understand this as a difference of opinion, but said concerning it: “He means: provided that it is not