Section

We have thus explained the rulings on return on account of a defect in all the situations we distinguished, as promised. Return on account of an invalid sale follows precisely the same rulings in every situation, except that neither party has a choice in the matter: it invariably constitutes rescission of the sale. Consequently, the only differences of opinion applicable to it are those applicable to return on account of a defect according to the view that such a return constitutes rescission. Harvesting the fruit, whether before or after pollination—but before fiyāt—constitutes an irreversible change requiring the sale to stand at the assessed value.

Section

As for recovery by a rightful owner, pre-emption, and insolvency, their rulings agree in some of the situations mentioned with those governing return on account of a defect or an invalid sale, but differ in others. I shall therefore set out their rulings in summary, abridging some details and following the classification already given for return on account of a defect, to make the discussion easier to follow.

At the time of purchase, the date palms must fall into one of three categories: (first) they bear no fruit at all, or bear fruit that has not yet been pollinated; (second) they bear pollinated fruit; or (third) they bear ripe fruit.

In the first category, where the palms bear no fruit at the time of purchase, or bear fruit that has not yet been pollinated, suppose that, while the fruit remains unpollinated, a rightful owner or a pre-emptor comes forward, or the buyer is declared insolvent and the seller wishes to recover his palms. There is no disagreement that they take the palms together with their fruit. The disagreement concerns only whether the buyer is entitled to recover from them his expenses for watering and tending, if he incurred any. This follows the discussion already given concerning return on account of a defect.

I have seen in some old books a report from Ibn al-Qāsim stating that the insolvent buyer does not recover his watering expenses. If this report from him is authentic, it represents a differing position of his that also applies to return on account of a defect and acquisition by pre-emption. The rationale for the first view is its analogy with recovery by a rightful owner and return on account of an invalid sale, because of the choice it affords the buyer. The rationale for