that the goods are either still available or no longer available for restitution. If they are still available and the parties’ disagreement entails no difference in either the price or the goods sold, the account of whichever party claims that the transaction is valid and lawful is accepted. If their disagreement entails a difference in the price and the goods sold, the ruling follows the disagreement over whether greater plausibility is taken into account while the goods are still available. According to those who take it into account, the account of the party claiming validity is accepted, unless customary practice is unlawful, in which case the account of the party alleging an unlawful transaction is accepted.
Abū Zayd transmitted from Ibn al-Qāsim that the account of whichever party claims what accords with customary practice is accepted. If people engage in both lawful and unlawful transactions, both parties are required to swear, and the transaction between them is rescinded. In this transmission, he thus gave no advantage to the claim of the party alleging a lawful transaction over that of the party alleging an unlawful one, basing his position on taking greater plausibility into account while the goods are still available.
According to those who do not take greater plausibility into account, both parties swear oaths and rescind the sale. This is how the transmission reads: both swear oaths and rescind the sale. The proper ruling, however, should be that the account of the party claiming invalidity is accepted, whether seller or buyer. If both swear, the sale is annulled. There is no purpose in requiring the other party’s oath, since, once the party claiming invalidity has sworn, the sale is rescinded whether the other party swears or refuses. If the party claiming invalidity refuses to swear, the party claiming validity swears, and the sale is upheld.
If the goods are no longer available for restitution, and the parties’ disagreement entails no difference in either the price or the goods sold, or concerns whether the price is lower or higher, or its characteristics rather than its kind, the account of the party alleging a lawful transaction is accepted. If their disagreement concerns a difference in kind, the ruling follows the disagreement over taking greater plausibility into account while the goods are still available. This is the conclusion I reach on this question on the basis of their principles.
Section
We mentioned at the beginning of this discussion that, when the parties to a hire contract disagree over the total distance or the nature of the hire, both swear oaths and rescind the contract, without further distinction. The rules governing their oaths and rescission in such cases have already been discussed. Likewise, both swear oaths and rescind the contract if they disagree over the amount of the hire charge before the journey begins, or after travelling a short distance, when no harm would result from