demand it himself, due to his being more capable of doing so, or because he fears harm from the side of his agent, such as the agent acknowledging a bribe against him or similar matters, thus he would be bound by his acknowledgment, so he is excused. We hold that he faces harm in traveling due to undertaking its burden, and he may have needs and trade that would be interrupted and lost due to his absence. If the appointment of an agent is for a fee, a debt is incurred, and if it is without a fee, he is under an obligation of gratitude. He also fears harm from his side, so having witnesses testify is sufficient. As for if he leaves traveling due to his inability to do so, or due to harm that would reach him in it, his right of preemption does not become void, in one of the views; because he is excused, so he is like one who did not know. And if he is unable to have witnesses testify, and is able to travel or appoint an agent but does not do so, his right of preemption becomes void; because he is one who has abandoned the demand despite his ability to do so, without the presence of anything that takes the place of the demand, so it lapses, just as if he were present.

Section: Anyone who is ill with an illness that does not prevent making the demand, such as a mild headache or slight pain, is like a healthy person. If it is an illness that prevents making the demand, such as fever and its likes, he is like the absent person regarding having witnesses testify and appointing an agent. As for the imprisoned, if he is imprisoned unjustly, or for a debt he is unable to pay, he is like the ill person. If he is imprisoned for a right that he is obliged to pay, and he is able to do so, he is like the unconstrained person; if he does not hasten to make the demand and does not appoint an agent for it, his right of preemption becomes void; because he has abandoned it despite the ability to do so.

875 - Issue: He said: "If he does not know until three or more persons have sold it, he has the right to demand the right of preemption from whomever he wishes among them. If he demands it from the first, the second returns for the price that was taken from him, and the third returns for the second."

The totality of this is that if the purchaser acts upon the sold item before the preemptor takes it or before he knows of it, his action is valid; because he owns it, and his taking possession of it is valid, and nothing remains except that the preemptor has the right to take it from him, and that does not prevent him from acting upon it, just as if one of the two compensations in a sale were defective, it would not prevent