The second buyer may recover the price from the one who sold it to him, and the first buyer may recover from his seller. If it perishes in the hands of the second buyer, the seller has the right to demand payment from whichever of them he wishes; because the first is a guarantor, and the second took possession from the hand of his guarantor without the permission of its owner, so he became a guarantor. If its value is greater than its price, and the second buyer guarantees it, he may not recover the excess from the first, because the destruction occurred in his hands, so the liability is fixed upon him. If the first buyer guarantees it, he recovers the excess from the second.

Section: If the purchased item increases while in the buyer's possession, through fattening or the like, and then it diminishes until it returns to what it was, or if the slave girl gives birth in the buyer's possession and then her child dies, it is possible that he is liable for that increase; because it is an increase in a guaranteed object, similar to an increase in usurped property. It is also possible that he is not liable for it; because he entered into the transaction on the understanding that there would be no consideration in exchange for the increase, so according to this view, the increase is a trust in his hand. If it perishes due to his negligence or transgression, he is liable for it, otherwise not. If the main object perishes after its increase, he deducts that increase from the value, and is liable for it at the value remaining at the time of destruction. The Qadi said: This is the manifest import of the words of Ahmad.

Section: If one makes a void sale and they take possession of the respective items, then the seller destroys the price and becomes insolvent, he has the right to reclaim the sold item, and the buyer is on par with the other creditors. Al-Shafi'i said this as well. Abu Hanifah said: The buyer has a greater right to the sold item than the rest of the creditors, because it is in his possession, so he is more entitled to it like a pledgee. We say: He did not take possession of it as security (wathiqah), so he is not more entitled to it, as if it were a deposit with him, unlike the pledgee, for he took possession of it on the basis that it is security for his right.

Section: If he says, "Sell your slave to so-and-so on the condition that I owe five hundred," and he sells it with this condition, the sale is void; because the entire price must be upon the buyer. If he stipulates that part of it be upon someone else, it is not valid; because he does not possess the right to forbid it, and the price is upon someone else. This does not resemble what happens if he said, "Free your slave, or divorce your wife, and I owe five hundred," because this is a consideration in exchange for the dissolution of the marriage or the emancipation of the slave, and for this reason, it is not permitted in marriage. As for