Interdiction does not repel the harm, and because it depends on the judge, which is usually difficult to achieve. Moreover, that which establishes interdiction and rescission after delivery is more appropriate to prevent delivery [in the first place], because prevention is easier than reversal, and prevention before delivery is easier than prevention after it. For this reason, a woman has the right to withhold herself before receiving her dower (sadaq) before delivering herself, but she does not have that right after delivery. Furthermore, the seller has the right to withhold the sold item before taking possession of its price, or when it is equivalent to having been possessed, because its being put into his possession is possible; otherwise, he does not. In every case where we have said he has the right to rescission, he may exercise that without a judge’s decree, because it is a rescission of the sale due to the insolvency of the price, which the seller owns, like the rescission regarding the substance of his wealth if the buyer goes bankrupt. In every case where we have said he is placed under interdiction, that belongs to the judge, because the authority of interdiction resides with him.

Section: If the buyer flees before weighing the price, and he is insolvent, the seller has the right to rescind immediately, because if he is entitled to rescission while the buyer is present, he is more entitled to it when the buyer has fled. If the buyer is solvent, the seller shall prove this before the judge, then if the judge finds assets for him, he pays it off; otherwise, he sells the sold item and pays the price from it. Whatever remains is for the buyer, and if it is insufficient, it remains as a debt in his liability. It seems stronger to me that the seller has the right to rescission in any case, because we have permitted him to rescind while the buyer is present if the price is far from the city, due to the harm of the delay that falls upon him; therefore, it is more appropriate here [to allow it] with the inability to collect the price in any case. The harm is not repelled by referring the matter to the judge, because of the seller's inability to prove it before the judge; often the sale occurs in a place where there is no judge, and usually there is no one present whose testimony the judge would accept, so referring him to this is a waste of his wealth. These derivatives strengthen what I have mentioned: that the seller has the right to prevent the buyer from taking possession of the sold item before producing its price, due to the harm involved in that.