He does not have the right of rescission due to the impossibility of satisfaction, regardless of whether he knew or did not know. Moreover, he is not entitled to demand its price, so he is not entitled to rescission due to its impossibility, as is the case if its price was deferred. Furthermore, the one who knew of the defect entered into the contract with insight regarding the insolvency of the liability, so it is like one who buys a defective item while knowing of its defect. There is another opinion, which is that he has the option due to the generality of the report, and because he contracted with him at the time of the rescission, so his right to rescission is not forfeited, just as if a woman married a poor man who is insolvent regarding her maintenance. There is a third opinion: if he sold it to him while knowing of his insolvency, then he has no rescission; but if he did not know, then he has the right of rescission, like the buyer of a defective item. This differs from the case of someone insolvent regarding maintenance because the obligation of maintenance is renewed every day, so satisfaction with one who is insolvent regarding it is satisfaction with a defect that has not yet become obligatory, unlike our issue. This only resembles the case if she married someone insolvent regarding the dower and she surrendered herself to him, then wished to rescind.

Section: Whoever leases land to cultivate it, and then becomes insolvent before any part of the term has passed, the lessor may rescind the lease because he found the very item of his property. If it is after the expiration of the term, he is merely a creditor for the rent. If it is after some of it has passed, he does not possess the right of rescission according to our school's qiyas (analogy) regarding sold goods if some of it is destroyed, for the term here is like the sold item, and the passage of some of it is like the destruction of some of it, yet the passage of a duration for which there is a rent equivalent is considered, because it is impossible to avoid the passage of a part of it under any circumstances. Al-Qadi said in another place: Whoever rents land and cultivates it, then becomes insolvent, and the owner of the land rescinds, then he must leave the insolvent person's crop until the time of harvest for the equivalent rent; because what was contracted upon is the usufruct, so if he rescinded the contract, he rescinded it regarding what he owned against him through the contract, and since it is impossible to return it to him, he is entitled to its substitute, just as if he rescinded the sale after having destroyed the sold item, he would have its value, and he would rank with the creditors for that, and so it is here, and he ranks with the creditors for the equivalent rent rather than the specified one. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i, and our school does not necessitate this, nor does the report testify to its correctness, nor is it correct according to legal reasoning. As for the report, it is because the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) only said: "Whoever finds..."