Section: If the sold item was a scribe or a craftsman, and he forgot that skill while in the buyer's possession, and then a defect was discovered in him, this is considered a defect that occurred while in the buyer's possession, and its ruling is the same as that of other defects. According to a narration from Ahmad, he may return him, and he does not return anything else with him. Al-Qadi explained this by stating that it is not a deficiency in the essence (al-'ayn), and it is possible for the skill to return through recollection. He said: Based on this, the same would apply if he were fat and then became thin. The qiyas (analogical deduction) is what we have mentioned; for craft and writing are considered valuable assets that are compensated for in cases of usurpation (ghasb), and they are binding by their stipulation in a sale, so they resemble physical entities and benefits such as hearing, sight, and intellect. The possibility of return is invalidated by [the aging of] teeth, sight, and pregnancy. Perhaps what was narrated from Ahmad refers to when the seller practiced deception (tadlis) regarding the defect.

Section: If the sold item becomes defective in the seller's possession after the contract, then if the sold item is at his risk, its ruling is that of an ancient defect. If it is at the buyer's risk, its ruling is that of a defect occurring after taking possession. As for that which occurs after taking possession, it is at the buyer's risk, and no option (khiyar) is established by it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: The warranty period (uhda) for slaves is three days, so whatever befalls him within that time is at the seller's risk, except for insanity, leprosy, and vitiligo, for if they appear within a year, the option is established; due to what al-Hasan narrated from Uqbah: that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) set the warranty period for slaves at three days. And because it is the consensus of the people of Medina. And because an animal might have a defect that then becomes apparent. Our evidence is that since it appeared in the buyer's possession, it is possible that it is something that occurred later, so no option is established by it, like any other sold item, or what occurs after the three days and the year. Their hadith is not established; Imam Ahmad said: There is no authentic hadith regarding it. Ibn al-Mundhir said: No authentic hadith is established regarding the warranty period (uhda), and al-Hasan did not meet Uqbah. The consensus of the people of Medina is not a proof. A latent disease is of no consequence; the deficiency is only counted by what becomes apparent, not by what is hidden.