cLfco/pT;«, lF a Perfon’ havinS fold t0 allother * «Ivor veflel, (hould receive
i f the parties payment ill part, and both parties then feparate, in that cafe the fale is
fore'paymeiit nul1 refpeft to the amount remaining to be paid, but Valid in the
of the full amount taken pofleffion o f ; and the parties have each a fhare in the
is valid only property or the veii-el;— became this fale is Strf, or pure, with regard
portiotfpaid; t0 the whole of thfc fubje a > aud confequently valid in that degree in
which the conditions of a pure fele have been observed, and invalid in
the degree in which they have been omitted; for the invalidity, in
this cafe, is not ejjential, but accidental, inafmuch as the fale was
valid in its formation, and afterwards, in confequence of the fepara-
tion of the parties after the receipt of a part, became invalid with relation
to part of the fubjedt; and hence the invalidity, which is accidental,
does, hot operate upon the part in which all the conditions of the
laie have been obferved,
or, if it be If a perfon fell a filver veflel which afterwards appears to be in,
be in part the Part the property of another, in that cafe the purchafer has the op-
Sothe? H tl0n eltber of retaining a right of property in the remaining part
purchafer of the veflel, or of cancelling the bargain entirely; becaufe part-
quhh the bar- nerfliip in a veflel is equivalent to a blemijkin it,
gain:
(but this does If a perfon fell an ingot of filver,. and - part o f it afterwards
refpeft to an appears to be the property of another, the purchafer is. in that cafe
mpi.) conftrained to take the remaining part at a proportionate price r
— and he is not allowed an option, in this inftance, becaufe the
diyifion of an ingot of filver does not in any lhape injure it,
t'lt T he fale of two dirms and one deenar, in exchange for two deenars
each fide, and one dirm, is valid; becaufe in this cafe the dirms are confidered asfpeciesofmo
°PPofed to the deenars-, and as they are of a different genus, an ine-
uey, the* fale quality in the proportion is therefore admitted. Shafei and Ziffer main-
rateisUlawfid; tain that this fale is unlawful; and they have difagreed in the fame
manner with refpeft to the legality of the fale of one Koor of barley
8 and
and one Koor of wheat in exchange for two Koors of wheat and two
Koors of barley. Their reafoning in fupport of their opinion is that
the feller and buyer have oppofed one total to another total; and this
requires that every feparate part of the one be oppofed to every feparate
part of the other, (in an indefinite and not a definite manner-;)—
now in the oppofing of each genus, refpectively, to a different genus,,
a modification is induced in this particular, which is not lawful, not-
•withftanding fuch a conftrudtion of the fale be the means of rendering
it valid.— In 'the fame manner as where a perfon, for ten dirms, pur-
chafes a filver bracelet weighing ten dirms, and again, for other ten
dirms, purchafes a piece of cloth, and then-difpofes of both articles • f
t'ogether, by a Moor&bihat contradt, (fuppofe) for thirty dirms, in
which cafe the Moor&bihat fale is invalid, although it be poflible, by
fuppofing the whole of the profit to be exacted on the cloth, to render
it valid :— or, where a perfon purchafes a Have for one thoufand
dirms, and, previous to the payment of the price, fells him,, along
with another, for fifteen hundred dirms, to the perfon from. whom,
he had bought the Have for one thoufand dirms-, for in this cafe the
fale is invalid in relation to the Have of a thoufand dirms, becaufe
there is a poflibility that the other Have may have been worth
more than; five hundred dirms-, -.and fuppofing this, it necefiarily
follows that the feller has purchafed the Have for a 1'maller price
than that for which he formerly fold him ; although in- this,
cafe it be poflible to render the fale valid by fuppofing the one
Have to be oppofed to one thoufand dirrns, in a fpecific manner,
and the other to five hundred dirms, fe as. to remove the
poflibility of the feller having received him at a fmaller price than that
for which he had fold him:— or, where a feller, having exhibited
two Haves, of which- one only is his property, fays, to the purchafer,
“ I have fold to you one of thefe (laves,” in which cafe the fale is
invalid, notwithftandiug it be poflible to render it valid by fuppofing
that the feller meant his own ( l a v e o r , where a perfon fells a dirm
and a piece of cloth for a dirm and a piece of cloth, and both parties
then feparate without making feizin,— in which cafe the fale is invalid