An exception
with refpedt
to the quality
o f money acknowledged
to be due, is
fetafide .by
the counter-
alTertion of
the perfon in
whofe favour
the acknowledgment
is
made:
B o o k XXV.
the fulpenfion on a condition is. a modification, and confequently ad-
miffible, provided it be conjoined with the fpeech: in oppolition to an
acknowledgment of the price of wine or pork, which is not a fuf*
penlion, but an annulment of the acknowledgment, as. has been already
explained.
I f a perfon declare that “ a thouland dirms are'due from him to
“ fuch a perfon, as the price of certain .effects,” or “ on account of a
“ loan'” and afterwards allege the faid thoufand dirms to be Zeyf, or
Binhirja, or Satooka, or Arzeez, and the perfon in whofe favour the
acknowledgment is made allege them to be Jeed*, in that- cafe, according
to Haneefa, the acknowledger is refponlible for Jeed dirms,
whether his latter affertion be conjoined with his prior declaration, or
otherwife.-—'The two difciples maintain that the latter affertion of the
acknowledger is to be credited, in cafe only of its being conjoined with
the former, and not otherwife.— The fame difference of opinion obtains
where a perfon declares, that “ he owes another a thouland
“ dirms,” adding that “ they are Z e y ff or that “ another has lent
“ him a thoufand dirms, but that they are.Z e y f” or, that “ he owes
another a'thoufand dirms on account of certain goods, but that they
“ are Z e y fl'—-{Z ey f dirms are fuch as are not accepted at the public
treafury, but which pafs amongff merchants: the Binhirja is of a kind
ffill w 'orfe, which does not pafs amongfl: merchants; and the Satooka
and Ariseez are the'worft qf all,* and in which the mixture of bafe
metal preponderates.) T h e argument of the two difciples iS that the
above explanation is a modification, and is confequently valid if conjoined,
in the lame manner as a condition, or %i\ exception', for the
word dirrn is literally applicable to Zeyf, and metaphorically to Satooka:
the acknowledger’s declaration, therefore, of their being Z ey f or Satooka
is merely a modification, in the fame manner as if a perfon fhould
* Pure money, o f the current llandard. T h e other defcriptions are explained a little
further oil.
declare
declare that “ he owes a thoufand dirms, but of fuch a kind that ten
“ of them weigh live mijkals. T h e reafoning of Haneefa is that his
affertion of their being Z ey f or Satooka is equivalent to a retradtation:
for an abfolute contrail prefuppofes dirms free from defedt; whereas
Zeyf 'and Satooka are both defective. Now the plea of a defedl is a retradtation
of part of the obligation involved in the acknowledgment;
and the cafe is therefore the fame as if the feller of a thing fhould fay
to the purchafer of it, “ I have fold you a thing with a defedt, of
“ which you were apprized,” and the purchafer deny his knowledge -
of the defect, in which cafe the denial of the purchafer is credited, as
probability argues in his favour, lince every abfolute contradt fuppofes
a freedom from defedt. Belides, Satooka dirms do not conftitute price-,
and as a contradt of fale is never concluded but for price, it follows
that his explanation is, in effedt, a retraclation. (Withrefpedt to the
cafe adduced by the two difciples of “ an acknowledgment of a debt
“ of a thoufand dirms, accompanied with a declaration that the dirms
“ due are of that kind o f which ten are equivalent to five mifkdls,”—
it is to be obferved, in reply, that the refervation is admitted, for this
reafon, that the acknowledger, in this inftance, fpeaks with a refervation
merely of the degree or proportion of the dirms, and to that the
word dirms applies.— It is otherwife in a defcription of the goodnefs of
the dirms, for as to this the term dirms does not properly apply, it is
not conlidered as a refervation, any more than the exception of the
foundation of a houfe.)— The cafe is different where a perfon ac- but not when
knowledges that he is indebted to another a Koor -of wheat, as the thf excePtio“
. ^ ’ relates to the
price of a Have, but that the wheat is of a coarfe kind; becaufe coarfe- fPecies and not
nefis, with relation to wheat, is not a quality but a fpecies, and an ab- *° the iual“J-
fqlute contradt does not neceffarily require that the wheat -be other
than coarfe.— It is related as an opinion of Haneefa, in other books than
the Zahir Bawdyet, that In a cafe of borrowing, the acknowledger’s
aflertion of the dirms being Z ey f ought to be credited, provided this
affertion be conjoined with the acknowledgment; becaufe the adt of
borrowing is not complete until after the feizin of the borrower; and
Von. III. x it