Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/123)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Section

If, then, we hold that the fruit remains with the buyer for its share of the price, since it constitutes yield belonging to him, there are three opinions as to when this occurs: (first) when it ripens, which is Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion in the Book of Defects; (second) when it dries, which is Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion in al-Mudawwana; and (third) when it is harvested, which is Ashhab’s opinion in the Book of Defects.

Section

As for insolvency, only one opinion is expressly recorded from them: the seller has the stronger claim to the fruit until it is harvested. Once it has been harvested, he has the stronger claim to the palms for their share of the price. The differing opinions also apply here by the same reasoning.

Section

As for the third scenario, where the palms bore fruit that had already begun to ripen and become fit to eat on the day of purchase, the rightful owner has the stronger claim to it, even if it has been harvested. If it is still available, he takes it. If the buyer has eaten it, he must compensate him with an equivalent quantity if its measure is known, or its value if its measure is unknown. If he has sold it and it is still available in the subsequent buyer’s possession, the rightful owner may either take it or ratify the sale and take the price. If it has perished in the subsequent buyer’s possession, he is entitled only to the price. This is stated in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book. It follows the opinion that the fruit does not become yield belonging to the buyer until it dries or is harvested.

According to the opinion that it becomes yield belonging to him upon ripening, however, the rightful owner has no claim to it if it ripened while in the seller’s possession, because ripening had already made it yield belonging to the seller. The rightful owner takes the palms alone, and the buyer from whom they are recovered claims back from the seller the share of the price attributable to them. The share attributable to the fruit is excluded from his claim, since it remains in his possession—unless he purchased it from a usurper or from a buyer who had purchased it after pollination, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position.

As for pre-emption, the pre-emptor has the stronger claim to the fruit until it is harvested, and must reimburse the expenses of watering and tending. Ibn al-Qāsim stated this in al-Mudawwana. He also states there that, if the fruit was purchased together with the palms before ripening, or separately from the palms after ripening, the pre-emptor has the stronger claim to it by pre-emption until it dries. It has been said that he distinguished between the two cases, but the correct understanding is that these are differing opinions.

As for insolvency, the seller has the stronger claim to both the palms and the fruit, even if the fruit has been harvested, so long as it is still available, as in the case of someone who buys two items and then becomes insolvent.

فصل فإذا قلنا: إنها تمضي بما ينوبها من الثمن؛ إذ إنها غلة للمبتاع، ففي ذلك ثلاثة أقوال، (أحدها) الطياب، وهو قول ابن القاسم في كتاب العيوب، (والثاني) اليبس وهو قول ابن القاسم في المدونة، (والثالث) الجداد وهو قول أشهب في كتاب العيوب. فصل وأما التفليس، فالمنصوص لهم فيه قول واحد، أنه أحق بها ما لم تجد، فإن جد كان أحق بالأصول بما ينوبها من الثمن ويدخل فيه الاختلاف بالمعنى. فصل وأما الوجه الثالث وهو أن يكون في النخل يوم الابتياع ثمرة قد أزهت وطابت، فإنه في الاستحقاق أحق بها وإن جدت، فإن كانت قائمة أخذها وإن أكلها غرم المكيلة إن عرفت، أو القيمة إن جهلت، وإن باعها وكانت قائمة بيد المبتاع كان له أن يأخذها أو يجيز البيع ويأخذ الثمن؛ فإن تلفت بيد المبتاع فليس له إلا الثمن، قاله في كتاب ابن المواز، وهذا على القول بأنها لا تصير غلة للمبتاع إلا باليبس أو الجداد؛ وأما على القول الذي يرى أنها تصير له غلة بالطياب، فلا حق له فيها إذا أزهت عند البائع، لأنها قد صارت له غلة بالطياب، ويأخذ المستحق النخل وحدها ويرجع المستحق منه على البائع بما ينوبها من الثمن ويسقط عنه ما ناب الثمرة لبقائها بيده، إلا أن يكون اشتراؤه إياها من غاصب أو مشتر اشتراها بعد الإبار، على مذهب ابن القاسم، وأما في الشفعة فإن الشفيع أحق بها ما لم تجد ويغرم السقي والعلاج، قاله ابن القاسم في المدونة؛ وله فيها إذا اشتراها مع الأصول قبل الطياب أو اشتراها دون الأصول بعد الطياب، أنه أحق بها بالشفعة ما لم تيبس، فقيل: إنه فرق بين المسألتين، والصواب أن ذلك اختلاف من القول؛ وأما في التفليس فالبائع أحق بالنخل والثمرة وإن جدت ما كانت قائمة كمشتري سلعتين يفلس.