its amount, the statement is the statement of the seller, because he is a denier of what the buyer claims after the dissolution of the contract, so it is similar to if they disagreed regarding the receipt (qabd).

Section: If he said: 'I sold you this slave for a thousand,' and he said: 'Rather, it and the other slave are for a thousand,' the statement is the statement of the seller along with his oath, and this is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: 'They shall mutually swear,' because they differed regarding the taking of the two countervalues of the contract, so they shall mutually swear, just as if they had disagreed regarding the price. Our view is that the seller denies the sale of the additional slave, so his statement is the statement accepted with his oath, just as if he claimed the sale of it separately.

Section: If they disagree on the identity of the sold item, and he said: 'I sold you this slave,' and he said: 'Rather, you sold me this slave girl,' the statement is the statement of each one of them regarding what he denies, along with his oath, because each one of them claims a contract on an object which the defendant denies, and the statement is the statement of the denier. So if the seller swears: 'I did not sell you this slave girl,' it is confirmed in his hand if it is in his hand, and it is returned to him if its claimant has already taken possession of it. As for the slave, if it is in the seller's hand, it is confirmed in his hand, and the buyer has no claim to it because he does not claim it, and the seller must return the price to him because the object of the contract did not reach him. If it is in the buyer's hand, he must return it to the seller, for he did not acknowledge that he did not buy it, and the seller has no claim to it if he offered him its price, due to his acknowledgment of having sold it. If he did not give him its price, he has the right to rescind the sale and take it back, because it became impossible for him to reach his price, so he has the right to rescind, just as if the buyer became insolvent. If each of them brings evidence for his claim, both contracts are established, because they do not contradict each other, so it is similar to if one of them claimed the sale of both of them and the other denied it. If one of them brings evidence for his claim to the exclusion of the other, what the evidence was established for is affirmed, to the exclusion of what it was not established for.

Section: If they disagree regarding the attribute of the price, it is returned to the currency of the land. This was stated as a text (nass) in the narration of al-Athram because the apparent implication is that they only contract using it.