but if he too refuses to take an oath, the contract between them is likewise dissolved.

If, at the time the salam falls due, they disagree, then—should the seller say, “You paid me in advance for white wheat,” while the purchaser says, “I paid you for brown wheat”—the seller’s statement prevails, provided he swears an oath. The same ruling applies if, while agreeing on the capital sum when the salam matures, they differ over the measure: one says, “of such-and-such a grade,” whereas the other says, “rather, of such-and-such a grade”; or one says, “I advanced you one dinar for two qafiz,” while the other says, “Rather, for one qafiz”; or one says, “for delivery in one month,” and the other, “in two months”; or one says, “for fresh-pressed oil,” and the other, “for stored oil.” In every instance where they agree on the very commodity itself—wheat, oil, cotton—and disagree only over its description at the time of delivery, having concurred on the capital, the word is that of the seller, the party to whom the salam was made, as long as he swears an oath.

This holds for all commodities: whenever they concur on the specific item and its kind but differ regarding color, measure, weight, number, or term, the seller’s statement prevails with his oath—provided he presents something that accords with what is customary; otherwise, the word belongs to the one who does present what accords.

There is another opinion, however, that both parties stand on equal footing: if they differ about the very commodity, its description, or its term, they each swear and the sale is rescinded. This is the view of Ashhab, whereas the first opinion is the settled position of the school.

And if they disagree about the place where the salam commodity is to be taken possession of, and neither of them can produce evidence, judgment is rendered against the seller to deliver it in the place where