And if they differ regarding that which invalidates it, the statement is the statement of the one who claims validity, as in the case preceding it. It is also possible that the statement of the one who claims minority is accepted, because it is the default principle, and this is the opinion of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i. It differs from when they differ regarding a corrupt condition or duress for two reasons: First, because the default principle there is its absence, whereas here the default principle is its continuation. Second, the apparent implication regarding a legally responsible person (mukallaf) is that he does not engage in anything but valid transactions, whereas here it is not established that he was a legally responsible person. If he says: 'I sold you while I was insane,' then if no state of insanity was known for him, the statement is the statement of the buyer, because the default principle is its absence. If it is established that he was insane, then he is like the child. If a slave says: 'I sold you while I was not granted permission for trade,' the statement is the statement of the buyer. This was stated as a text (nass) by him, in the narration of Muhanna, because he is a legally responsible person, and the apparent implication is that he does not conclude a contract except a valid one.

Section: If the two contracting parties die, their heirs are in their position in everything we have mentioned, because they stand in their place in taking their wealth and inheriting their rights; thus, the same applies to what is incumbent upon them or what accrues to them.

Section: If they differ regarding delivery, and the seller says: 'I will not deliver the sold item until I take possession of the price,' and the buyer says: 'I will not deliver the price until I take possession of the sold item,' and the price is a liability (dhimma), the seller is compelled to deliver the sold item, then the buyer is compelled to deliver the price. If it is a specific object (ayn), or a trade good for a trade good, an arbiter is placed between them; he takes possession from both of them, then delivers to both of them. This is the opinion of al-Thawri and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. From Ahmad, there is that which indicates that the seller is compelled to deliver the sold item absolutely, and this is the second opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: 'The buyer is compelled to deliver the price,' because the seller has the right to detain the sold item until the price is delivered, and whoever is entitled to that is not obligated to deliver before fulfillment, like the pledgee (murtahin). To us, the delivery of the sold item is linked to the stability and completion of the sale, so prioritizing it is more appropriate, especially since the right is attached to the item itself,