The second section: If he sells the defective item, then wishes to take its compensation (arsh). The apparent view of al-Khiraqi is that he is not entitled to compensation, whether he sold it while knowing of the defect or not knowing. This is the school of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i; because the prevention of the return was due to his own action, which resembles the case where he destroys the sold item. Also, he has rectified his grievance by selling it, so he has no claim to compensation, just as if the defect had ceased. The Qadi said: If he sold it while knowing of the defect, he has no claim to compensation, due to his acceptance of it in its defective state. If he sold it while not knowing of the defect, he is entitled to compensation. Ahmad stated this explicitly, because the seller did not fulfill what the contract required of him, and there was no evidence of his acceptance of it in a deficient state, so he has the right of recourse against him, just as if he had manumitted it.

The logic of the school (qiyas) is that he is entitled to compensation in all cases, whether he sold it while knowing of the defect or was ignorant of it; because we gave him the initial choice between returning it, or keeping it and taking compensation, and his selling and disposing of it is equivalent to him keeping it. Furthermore, the compensation is a substitute for the portion of the sold item that is lost; therefore, it does not lapse by his selling it or his acceptance, just as if he had bought ten qafiz (measures of grain) and the seller delivered nine, and the buyer then sold them. Their claim that he rectified his grievance is invalid, for his grievance is against the seller, and he has not rectified it from him; rather, the buyer was wronged, and his right against the one who wronged him does not lapse because of this. This is the correct view from the sayings of Malik. Abu al-Khattab mentioned two narrations from Ahmad regarding the seller of a defective item seeking compensation, without distinguishing between the seller's knowledge of the defect and his ignorance of it. According to the view of those who say he is not entitled to compensation, if the second buyer learns of it and returns it due to it, or takes compensation from him, the first (buyer) may take his compensation. This is the view of al-Shafi'i when the second buyer is prevented from returning it due to a defect that occurred while in his possession, because he did not rectify his grievance, and each of the two buyers may seek recourse for the portion of the price corresponding to the defect from the price at which he purchased it, according to what we have mentioned previously.