the price is prefent and exhibited, the object may be obtained' by a reference
to it, the cafe being, in fad, the fame as that of cloth Itipu-
lated as the price, in a Sillim fale, of which fpecification is not a re-
quifite condition, provided it be produced to view and capable of a reference.
The arguments of Haneefa are twofold. F irst, as it
often happens that many of the dirms and deenars are of a bad kind, and'
that the purchafer during the meeting is incapable of exchanging them,,
the feller therefore returns them; and a proportionate dedudion being
made from the wares, the fale remains extant in a degree-proportionate'
to the fum received by the feller. Now, in this cafe, and under fuch
circumftances, . if the amount »of the dirms be not known ;; it follows,
that it cannot be known, in. w,hat extent, the Sillim fale exifts..
Secondly, as it fometimes happens that the feller j being, incapable
of acquiring the fubjed of the fale, is under the neceffity of reftoring
the price, it follows that if this fhould not have been explained; it is
impoffible to judge what fum he ought to return-
Objection.— Thefe two fuppofitions are merely imao-inarv, and
therefore of no weight.
R eply.— Imaginations, with refped to Sillim. fales, are.equivalent,
to realities; bec.aufe fuch fales are of but a weak nature, being authorized
(as has been already explained) in oppofition, to. analogy._
Hence imaginations with refped to.them are of weight; and it is ne-
ceflary that the price be definite with refped to the rate,, provided it
be of fuch a kind as that the contrad may relate to a rate; but if it
be cloth, the fpecification .of a number of yards is not. required as a,
condition, fince thefe are not confider.ed as the rate, but the de-
fcription.
— As., alfo, (according to Haneefa,') an explanation of the rate of the.
price is an effential condition to a Sillim fale, it follows that (agreeably
to his tenets) a. fale of this nature is not lawful where, the wares,,
being.of different kinds, (fuch as wheat and barley,)' are oppofed to
any fpecific fum, (one hundred dirms*,. for inftance,) without a fe-
parate price being fpecified in oppofition to each of the kinds, becaufe.
the
the amount being here oppofed generally to both, the particular price
of each remains unknown.— In the lame manner alio, it is not lawful
where, the price being of different kinds, (fuch as dirms and deenars,)
an explanation is given of the quantity of one of thefe kinds and not or
the other-, for in this cafe the contrad of Sillim is not lawful in the
degree to which an unknown quantity is oppofed to i t ; and confe-
quently, it is alfo invalid with refped to the degree in which it is oppofed
to a known quantity, fince one contrad relates to both. According
to the two difciples both thefe modes of Sillim are lawful,
fince in their opinion an exhibition of the price without any explanation
o f the rate is valid.— The argument of the two difciples in fup-
port of their fecond pofition is, that the place of the contrad is fixed
for the delivery, becaufe the contrad, which is the eaufe of the delivery,
did there take place: the cafe is therefore the fame as that of a-
borrower or ufurper, on ,each of whom it is- incumbent to deliver what
he may have borrowed- or ufurped at the place in which thefe deeds
took pkee.— The reafoning of Haneefa is, that as . the delivery of the
fubjed of a Sillim fale is not immediately incumbent, the place in which
the contrad is concluded is not abfolutely fixed as the place of delivery.—
(It is otherwife in cafes of loan or ufurpation, fince the repayment
of the loan and the reftitution of the ufurped article are incumbent
upon the infant.)— Now as the place o f concludingthe contrail
is not neceffarily fixed as the place of delivery, it is requifite that fome
place be fpecified, as the uncertainty in this particular may otherwife
produce a contention, fince the price of goods varies in different places;
it is therefore indifpenfable that a place of delivery be fpecified by the
parties.— Ignorance, moreover, with refped to the place of delivery, is
equivalent to uncertainty with refped to the quality of the goods or
the quality of the price:— and accordingly, fome of our modern doctors
• have (aid that if a contention arife between the parties with
refped to the place of delivery, then, agreeably to the tenets of Haneefa,
their oaths muff be feverally taken, as in the cafe of a contention
regarding the quality of the price;— whereas, agreeably to
the