he is entitled to refuse to accept the defect. If, however, the goods are in the second circumstance, having become non-returnable owing to a change in market prices or slight deterioration, the buyer has a choice. He may seek the remedy for a defect, either keeping them without receiving anything back or returning them without owing anything, since neither changes in market prices nor slight deterioration preclude their return on account of a defect. The seller cannot compel him to keep them by deducting the falsely stated amount—namely, the loss in value caused by the defect together with its corresponding share of the profit—for he cannot force him to accept the defect against his will. Alternatively, the buyer may seek the remedy for a false statement of the price and accept the defect, since the goods have become non-returnable under the rules governing such a false statement. If he chooses this, the procedure is to ascertain how much the marriage reduced the price the seller paid for her on the day he purchased her.

This is done by valuing her as of that day both with and without the defect. The amount of the difference between the two valuations is deducted from the price, and the remainder is the correct price. She is then valued as of the day the buyer purchased her or the day he took possession of her, according to the differing views on this point. The buyer owes that assessed value, unless it is less than the correct price, in which case nothing is deducted from what is due to the seller, or greater than the price the buyer paid for her, in which case nothing is added to what is due to the seller. If she is in the third circumstance, having become non-returnable through resale, the buyer may seek only the remedy for a false statement of the price. According to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, the buyer has no claim for any recovery on account of a defect after resale. The procedure is that which we have already explained.

If she is in the fourth circumstance, having become non-returnable owing to seriously impairing defects, he may seek either remedy and has three options:

(The first) is to return her and pay compensation for the loss in value caused by the defect that arose while she was in his possession. (The second) is to recover the loss in value caused by the original defect together with its corresponding share of the profit. (The third) is to accept the defect and seek the remedy for a false statement of the price. He then owes the assessed value, unless it exceeds the price he paid for her, in which case he owes no more than that price, since it is he who is claiming the excess from the seller; or unless the assessed value is less than the price the seller paid for her after deducting the loss in value caused by the defect and its corresponding share of the profit, reckoned as of the day the seller purchased her, in accordance with the procedure and explanation given above.

If she is in the fifth circumstance, involving her physical loss or something equivalent to physical loss, he may seek either remedy. He may seek the remedy for a defect and recover the loss in value it caused together with its corresponding share of the profit; or he may seek the remedy for a false statement of the price, in which case he owes the assessed value, unless it falls below or exceeds the limits explained above. There is in