Scientific topics Journal Article

Machine summary:

Some jurists hold that the buyer has the right of recourse against the seller and the right to demand the price, and they have noted that fundamentally, from the beginning of the matter—meaning the purchase of the usurped property and the payment of the price to the seller—the seller, due to the invalidity of the transaction, has not become the owner of the price and is liable to return the price to the buyer, who is its true owner; it is only from the buyer's side that consent to paying an amount to a usurper occurred, and in fact, with full will and consent, he transferred ownership of the transaction price to the seller, and consequently, it left his ownership and no cause was subsequently created for the ownership of the price, and the restitution of the usurped sold item from the buyer does not necessitate liability for the seller. Some jurists hold that the buyer has the right of recourse against the seller and the right to demand the price, and they have noted that fundamentally, from the beginning of the matter—meaning the purchase of the usurped property and the payment of the price to the seller—the seller, due to the invalidity of the transaction, has not become the owner of the price and is liable to return the price to the buyer, who is its true owner; it is only from the buyer's side that consent to paying it was given, granting him permission to dispose of it, but ownership and transfer of ownership according to Sharia regulations have not taken place, and as long as the principal price remains in the hands of the seller, he has the right of recourse and the right to restitution of the principal price; and if he has destroyed the price, he must pay its equivalent or its value to the buyer.