Firstly: The Disagreement in the Essence of the Sale
When the contracting parties disagree on the essence of the sale, and neither of them has evidence, then the opinion is the one that is disapproved of along with his oath.

Evidences:
1. By Consensus (Ijma')
Consensus has been narrated regarding this from Al-Qarafi [2640] Al-Qarafi said: "The disagreement in the occurrence of the contract, the one who denies it is affirmed by his oath by consensus." ((Adh-Dhakhira)) (321/5). , Al-Adawi [2641] Al-Adawi said: "When they disagree about the essence of the contract, the one who denies it is affirmed by his oath by consensus." ((Hashiya al-Adawi 'ala Kifayat at-Talib ar-Rabani)) (350/2). , and Al-Khurashi [2642] Al-Khurashi said: "The author left their disagreement about the essence of the contract because it is clear, and that is the one who denies it is affirmed by his oath by consensus." ((Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil)) (196/5). .
2. Because the default is the absence of a sale, so the opinion is the one that is disapproved of [2643] Refer to: ((Kashf al-Qina)) by Al-Buhuti (352/3). .

Secondly: The Disagreement in the Type of Contract
When the contracting parties disagree on the type of contract, one of them claims it to be a sale, and the other denies it to be a sale, claiming it to be a gift, a loan, a pledge, or something else, and neither of them has evidence, then they both take an oath [2644] Each one of them swears to deny the claim of the other, and then the claims of both of them are void. . This is the opinion of the Shafi'i [2645] ((Mughni al-Muhtaj)) by Ash-Shirbini (97/2), ((Hashiya ash-Shurwani 'ala Tuhfat al-Muhtaj)) (211/3). and Hanbali [2646] ((Kashf al-Qina)) by Al-Buhuti (300/4), ((Matalib Awliya an-Nah)) by Ar-Ruhaybani (383/4). schools, and the opinion of Muhammad bin Al-Hasan from the Hanafi [2647] ((Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya)) (33/4). school. This is because the default is the absence (of a sale), so each of them swears on what the other denied [2648] Refer to: ((Kashf al-Qina)) by Al-Buhuti (300/4). .

Thirdly: The Disagreement in the item that was sold.
When the contracting parties disagree on the item that was sold, and neither of them has evidence, then they both take an oath, and the sale is deemed void [2649] In the sense that each one of them swears to deny the claim of the other, and then the sale is deemed void. . This is the opinion of the majority: the Hanafis [2650] Refer to: ((Al-Mabsut)) by As-Sarakhsi (13/32, 33). , Maliki [2651] ((Al-Kafi)) by Ibn Abdul Barr (697/2, 698), ((Al-Taj wa al-Iklil)) by Al-Mawaq (510/4). , Shafi'i [2652] ((Fath al-Aziz)) by Al-Rafi'i (155/9), ((Mughni al-Muhtaj)) by Al-Sharbini (95/2). , and a view in the Hanbali [2653] ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (9/4), ((Al-Insaaf)) by Al-Mardawi (330/4). school. This is because each one of them claims a contract on a sale that the other denies, so they swear on what the other denied [2654] Refer to: ((Al-Mughni)) by Ibn Qudamah (147/4), ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (9/4), ((Al-Insaaf)) by Al-Mardawi (329, 330/4). .

Fourthly: Differences in the Validity and Invalidity of a Sale
When the contracting parties differ regarding the validity or invalidity of a sale, and neither of them has clear evidence, the verdict goes in favor of the one claiming its validity with his oath. This is the view of the majority [2655] According to the Hanafis: The claim of invalidity prevails in cases of disagreement regarding validity and invalidity when there is no clear evidence. The claim of validity prevails in cases of disagreement between validity and corruption. This is based on their fundamental principle of distinguishing between validity and invalidity. Refer to: ((Bada'i al-Sana'i)) by Al-Kasani (34/5), ((Hashiyat Ibn Abidin)) (131/5). : the Maliki [2656] The verdict favors the one claiming validity when corruption is not predominant, and the price has not differed due to validity and corruption. (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on Al-Sharh al-Kabeer) (193/3), ((Munh al-Jaleel)) by Ulaysh (327/5), ((Al-Fawaqih al-Dawani)) by Al-Nafrawi (228/2). , Shafi'i [2657] ((Mughni al-Muhtaj)) by Al-Sharbini (97/2, 98), ((Nihayat al-Muhtaj)) by Al-Ramli (423/3). , and Hanbali [2658] ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (9/4), ((Al-Iqna)) by Al-Hajawi (108/2). schools.
This is because:
Firstly, when they both agreed to the contract, it appeared to be valid [2659] Refer to: ((Hashiyat Ibn Abidin)) (131/5). .
Secondly. the one claiming invalidity requests cancellation, and his opponent disputes that claim. The verdict goes in favor of the one who disputes it [2660] Refer to: ((Hashiyat Ibn Abidin)) (131/5). .
Thirdly, the occurrence of a sound transaction by a Muslim is more likely than that of an invalid one [2661] Refer to: ((Al-Mughni)) by Ibn Qudamah (148/4). .

Fifthly: Differences in the Description of the Sold Item
1. Differences in the Stipulation of a Description in the Item that is sold [2662] For example, a person sells a car with a specific description, and then they disagreed with the buyer about the description. The buyer says, "You described it to me as such," and the seller says, "I described it as such and such".
When the contracting parties differ in stipulating a description of the sold item, and neither of them has clear evidence, the verdict goes in favor of the seller.  This is the view of the Hanafis [2663] ((Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq)) by Ibn Najim (67/6), ((Hashiyat Ibn Abidin)) (37/5). , Malikis [2664] According to the Maliki school, the seller must have criticized the price, as mentioned in ((Al-Mudawwana)). The view of Ashhab and Asbah is that the verdict is in favor of the seller, whether he criticized it or not. ((Mawahib al-Jalil)) by Al-Hattab (386/6), ((Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on Al-Sharh al-Kabeer)) (188/3). Refer to: ((Al-Mudawwana)) by Sahnun (322/3), ((Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil)) by Al-Khurashi (139/5). , one perspective among the Shafi'is [2665] ((Fath al-Aziz)) by Al-Rafi'i (172, 173/9), ((Riyadat al-Talibin)) by Al-Nawawi (581/3). , and a view amongst the Hanbalis [2666] ((Al-Furu')) by Ibn Maflah (145/6), ((Al-Insaaf)) by Al-Mardawi (215/4). , which is also the choice of Ibn 'Uthaymeen [2667] Ibn Uthaymeen said: "If someone sells an item with a specific description, for example, saying, 'I sold you a car with such and such specifications,' and then they disagree about the description. The buyer says, 'You described it to me as such,' and the seller says, 'I described it as such and such,' in this case, neither of them has a decisive argument. So, the choice and the prevailing opinion are that either the buyer accepts the seller's description, or else, the ownership remains with the seller." ((Al-Sharh al-Mumtani')) (365/8). . This is because the buyer is claiming something in excess over what the seller is claiming, and the burden of proof for the description lies with the buyer. If the buyer does not provide evidence for the description, the seller's statement stands [2668] Refer to: ((Al-Mudawwana)) by Sahnun (322/3). .

2. Dispute Over a Defect in the Sold Item
Disagreement Between the Contracting Parties Regarding Knowledge of the Defect [2669] For example, the seller claims: "He dispatched it after the buyer knew about the defect," and the buyer denies knowing about the defect.
If the contracting parties disagree over knowledge of a defect and neither has evidence, the word is for the buyer. This is agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2670] "Al-Mabsut" by Al-Sarakhsi (18/116), "Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah" (3/86). , Maliki [2671] "Hashiyah Al-Dasouqi 'ala Al-Sharh Al-Kabir" (3/132), "Minh Al-Jalil" by Ulaysh (5/197). , Shafi'i [2672] "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (3/491), "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/61). , and Hanbali [2673] "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/218), and refer to: "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (7/189). .

This is for the following reasons:
Firstly, this is to remove the harm that befalls the buyer due to owning a deficient item less than their right [2674] Refer to: "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/226). .
Secondly, the default assumption is the absence of a defect, and the word is for the one who denies it, who is the buyer [2675] Refer to: "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah (7/189). .

Disagreement Between the Contracting Parties Regarding the Time of Occurrence of a Defect Unlikely to Occur with the Buyer [2676] For instance, some parts of a car rusting or decaying, which is not likely to have occurred with the buyer, as it only happens after a considerable period of time.
If the contracting parties disagree over the time when a defect occurred, which is unlikely to have occurred with the buyer, the word is for the buyer. This is agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2677] "Tabyin Al-Haqa'iq" by Al-Zaylai (4/40), "Al-Bahr Al-Raiq" by Ibn Nujaym (6/66), and refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/279). , Maliki [2678] "Sharh Al-Zarqani 'ala Mukhtasar Khalil" (5/269, 270), "Al-Sharh Al-Kabir by Al-Dardir with Hashiyah Al-Dasouqi" (3/137). , Shafi'i [2679] "Fath Al-Aziz" by Al-Rafi'i (8/370), "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (3/490). , and Hanbali [2680] "Al-Mubdi'" by Burhan Al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/438), "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (4/311). ; because if the occurrence is improbable, or it is unlikely for such a defect to occur within that period, then it is certain to have been with the seller [2681] Refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/279). .
Disagreement Between the Contracting Parties Regarding the Time of Occurrence of a Defect that Could Have Occurred with Either Party [2682] Examples include a broken vessel or a torn garment; it is possible that the breakage or tearing occurred with either the seller or the buyer.
If the contracting parties disagree about the time of occurrence of a defect that could have occurred with either of them, and neither has evidence, the word is for the seller. This is the view of the majority: Hanafi [2683] "Al-Bahr Al-Raiq" by Ibn Nujaym (6/72), and refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/279, 280). , Maliki [2684] "Hashiyah Al-Dasouqi 'ala Al-Sharh Al-Kabir" (3/137), "Minh Al-Jalil" by Ulaysh (5/207). , Shafi'i [2685] "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/61), "Nihayat Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Ramli (4/64). schools, and a narration from Ahmad [2686] "Al-Mubdi'" by Burhan Al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/437, 438), "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (4/311). .

This is for the following reasons:
1. The occurrence of the defect is certain, but its precedence is doubtful, and ruling based on certainty is preferable to ruling based on doubt [2687] Refer to: "Al-Hawi Al-Kabir" by Al-Mawardi (5/259). .
2. The default assumption is the absence of defects, so the word is for the claimant of the default, who is the seller [2688] Refer to: "Al-Sharh Al-Kabir by Al-Dardir with Hashiyah Al-Dasouqi" (3/137), "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/61). .

3. Disagreement Between the Contracting Parties Regarding the Actual Item Contracted Upon When Returned to the Seller [2689] For example, if the buyer returns a defective item, and the seller denies that it is his item, the word is for the seller along with his oath.
If the contracting parties disagree about the actual item contracted upon when it is returned to the seller, and neither has evidence, the word is for the seller along with his oath. This is agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2690] This ruling applies if there is no option of condition stipulated in the sale, in which case the word would be for the buyer. "Al-Bahr Al-Raiq" by Ibn Nujaym (6/67), "Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah" (3/92). , Maliki [2691] "Mawahib Al-Jalil" by Al-Hattab (4/462), "Al-Fawakih Al-Dawani" by Al-Nafrawi (2/106). , Shafi'i [2692] “Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (3/579), "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/98). , and Hanbali [2693] "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (4/311), "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/227). .
The reasons are as follows:
Firstly, the default assumption is the soundness and continuation of the contract [2694] Refer to: "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/98). .
Secondly, the seller is the denier, and the word is for the denier along with his oath [2695] Refer to: "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (4/311). .

Sixthly: Disagreement over the Possession of the Sold Item
If the contracting parties disagree over the possession of the sold item, and neither has evidence, the word is for the buyer if he denies it, as agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2696] "Fatawa Al-Hindiyyah" (4/189), and refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). , Maliki [2697] The Maliki school stipulate: There should be no customary evidence for either party. If the customary evidence is for one of them, then the word is for them. The buyer must be clear with the purchased item, i.e., separate from it. If not separated and the dispute occurs in his presence, then the word is for the seller; because the buyer admits to occupying his liability by possessing the purchased item, so his claim of having paid the price does not absolve him until proven. "At-Taj wal Ikleel" by Al-Mawwaq (4/511), "Minh Al-Jalil" by Ulaysh (5/323). , Shafi'i [2698] "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (3/580), "Mughni Al-Muhtaj" by Al-Sharbini (2/98). , and Hanbali [2699] "Al-Mubdi'" by Burhan Al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/438), "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/26). .
The reasons are as follows:
Firstly, not having possession is the default state, and possession is incidental. The buyer adheres to the default, while the seller claims an incidental matter. Hence, the apparent evidence supports the buyer, so the word is for the buyer with an oath [2700] Refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). .
Secondly, the seller claims the occurrence of possession and settlement of the price, which the buyer denies. The word is for the denier with an oath [2701] Refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). .

Seventhly: Disagreement Over the Possession of the Price
If the contracting parties disagree over the possession of the price, and neither has evidence, the word is for the seller - that they have not received the price - with an oath. This is agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2702] "Al-Mabsut" by Al-Sarakhsi (18/119), and refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). , Maliki [2703] "At-Taj wal Ikleel" by Al-Mawwaq (4/511), "Minh Al-Jalil" by Ulaysh (5/323). , Shafi'i [2704] "Rawdat Al-Talibeen" by Al-Nawawi (4/287), and refer to: "Asna Al-Matalib" by Zakariya Al-Ansari (2/259). , and Hanbali [2705] "Al-Iqna'" by Al-Hajjawi (2/140), "Kashaf Al-Qina'" by Al-Buhuti (3/299). .

The reasons are as follows:
Firstly, not having possession is the default, and possession is incidental. The seller adheres to the default, while the buyer claims an incidental matter. Hence, the apparent evidence supports the seller, so the word is for the seller with an oath [2706] Refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). .
Secondly, the buyer claims the occurrence of possession and settlement of the price, which the seller denies. The word is for the denier with an oath [2707] Refer to: "Bada'i' As-Sana'i'" by Al-Kasani (5/248). .

       
Eighthly: Disagreement Over the Nature of the Price [2708] For example, one party might say: "The sale was in Saudi Riyals," and the other says: "It was in US Dollars."

If the contracting parties disagree over the nature of the price, and neither has evidence, and there is known currency in the town, or there are coins, one of which is predominant, the decision defaults to the predominant one. If none prevails, they swear an oath. This is the view of the Hanbali [2709] "Al-Mubdi'" by Burhan Al-Din Ibn Muflih (4/8), "Al-Insaf" by Al-Mardawi (4/326, 328). school; because the apparent assumption is that the contract was made with the known currency, and they swear an oath when there are coins with no predominant one. This is because they disagree on the price in a way where neither side prevails, necessitating an oath, as in a dispute over the amount [2710] "Refer to: ((Al-Mubdi)) for Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (8/4). .

Ninthly: Disagreement Over the Amount of the Price
If the contracting parties disagree about the amount of the price and neither has evidence, they are required to swear oaths. If one party does not accept the other's statement, the sale is dissolved. This is agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools: Hanafi [2711] Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf made an exception in the case of a defective commodity; the statement is the buyers. Muhammad bin al-Hasan said: They both take an oath. ((Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai (4/308,309), ((Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq)) by Ibn Najim (222/7). , Maliki [2712] The Maliki school of thought holds that in the case of a defective commodity, custom testifies for the correctness of the buyer alone, or it testifies for both the buyer and the seller; then the statement belongs to the buyer with his oath. (Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on Al-Sharh al-Kabeer) (188/3), ((Munh al-Jaleel)) by Ali (315/5). , Shafi'i [2713] ((Riyadat al-Talibeen)) by al-Nawawi (577/3), ((Mughni al-Muhtaj)) by al-Sharbini (95/2). , and Hanbali [2714] ((Al-Iqna)) by al-Hajawi (107/2), ((Kashaf al-Qina)) by al-Bahuti (236/3). .

The reasons are as follows:
Firstly, it is possible to distinguish the truthful from the liar by appraising the value of the existing goods, which is not possible after their destruction [2715] Refer to: ((Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai (307/4). .
Secondly, each party claims a contract different from what the other claims, necessitating both to swear oaths [2716] Refer to: ((Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai (307/4). .

Tenthly: Disagreement Over the Quantity of Goods
If the contracting parties disagree over the quantity of goods and neither has evidence, they are required to swear oaths. If one party does not accept the other's statement, the sale is dissolved. This is the view of the majority: Hanafis [2717] Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf made an exception in the case of a defective item; the statement is the buyer's. Muhammad bin al-Hasan said: They both take an oath. ((Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai with the commentary of al-Shalbi (304/4, 305, 307), ((Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq)) by Ibn Najim (218/7). , Malikis [2718] The Maliki school of thought holds that in the case of a defective item, custom testifies for the benefit of the buyer alone, or it testifies for him and the seller; then the statement belongs to the buyer with his oath. (Sharh al-Zurqani on Mukhtasar Khalil) (353/5, 354), ((Munh al-Jaleel)) by Ali (315/5). , Shafi'is [2719] ((Riyadat al-Talibeen)) by al-Nawawi (577/3), ((Nihayat al-Muhtaj)) by al-Ramli (160/4). , and an opinion among the Hanbalis [2720] ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (9/4), ((Al-Insaaf)) by al-Mardawi (329/4). .

Evidences:
Firstly, from the Sunnah:
Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, "The Prophet, peace be upon him, ruled that the oath is on the defendant" [2721] Narrated by al-Bukhari (2559) and Muslim (1711). .
Point of Extrapolation
The Prophet, peace be upon him, placed the oath on the defendant, and both the seller and buyer are defendants in this case, so they both swear oaths [2722] Refer to: ((Nihayat al-Muhtaj)) by al-Ramli (160/4). .
3. They disagreed on the fundamental components of the contract, necessitating oaths, just as if they had disagreed about the price [2723] Refer to: ((Al-Mughni)) by Ibn Qudamah (147/4). .
Eleventhly: Differences in the Time Period (Term) in a Contract

1. Differences in Stipulating the Term or its Duration
If the parties involved in a contract differ in stipulating the term or its duration [2724] For example, if the seller and the buyer differ regarding the term, with the seller saying, "I sold you this item for immediate cash," and the buyer saying, "No, I bought it on a deferred payment," then the saying is the seller's, meaning the one who denies it. Or if they both agree that the price is deferred, and the seller says, "Deferred for a year," while the buyer says, "Deferred for a year," then the saying is the seller's, because the default is the absence of an increase in the term. Refer to: ((Al-Sharh al-Mumti)) by Ibn Uthaymeen (355/8). , then the word is the word of the one who denies it. This is the school of thought of the Hanafis [2725] ((Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai (306/4), ((Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah)) (33/4). and Hanbalis [2726] ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (8/4), ((Al-Insaaf)) by al-Mardawi (328/4). , and it is chosen by Ibn Uthaymeen [2727] Ibn Uthaymeen said: "His saying, 'If they differ in the term or condition, then the saying of the one who denies it’, an example of them differing on the term: If the seller says, 'I sold you this item for immediate cash,' and the buyer says, 'No, it should be considered deferred,' then the word is the seller's, meaning the one who denies it... Likewise, if they differ in the duration of the term, the word is the one who denies the increase, meaning they both agree that the price is deferred, but the seller says, 'Deferred for six months,' and the buyer says, 'Deferred for a year,' then the word is the seller's because the default is the absence of an increase. They both agreed on a year, but they differed in what exceeded it, and the default is the absence of an increase." ((Al-Sharh al-Mumti)) (355/8). .

This is for the following reasons:
Firstly, because the default is the absence of a term, just as if they had differed in the essence of the contract [2728] Refer to: ((Al-Mubdi)) by Burhan al-Din Ibn Maflah (8/4). .
Secondly, because the default regarding the price is immediate payment, and postponement is a condition. Therefore, the word is the word of the one who claims the default [2729] Refer to: ((Bada'i al-Sana'i)) by al-Kasani (262/6). .
3. Because the default regarding the duration of the term is the absence of an extension, so the word is the word of the one who denies the extension [2730] Refer to: ((Al-Sharh al-Mumti)) by Ibn Uthaymeen (355/8). .

2. Differences in the Expiry of the Term [2731] For example, if the price was deferred, and the seller and the buyer differed regarding the expiration of the term, the seller said, "The term has ended," and the buyer said, "It will end after a month," then the word is the buyer's.
If the contracting parties differ in the expiration of the term, and there is no clear evidence for either of them. The saying is the saying of the one who denies the expiry of the term (the buyer) with his oath, this is stated by the Hanafis [2732] ((Al-'Anayah)) by al-Babarti (213/8), ((Hashiyat al-Shalbi 'ala Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq)) by al-Zailai (122,123/4). , the Malikis [2733] This applies if the goods are defective, and custom testifies for the buyer; otherwise, the seller's statement is truthful. But if the goods are sound, they both agree. ((Al-Sharh al-Kabeer)) by al-Dardeer and ((Hashiyat al-Dasuqi)) (191/3), ((Munh al-Jaleel)) by Ali (322/5). , the Shafi'is [2734] ((Fath al-Azeez)) by al-Rafi'i (173/9), ((Rawdat al-Talibeen)) by al-Nawawi (581/3). , and it is in line with the Hanbali [2735] The Hanbali have stated their view on differences in the original term, its quantity, and that the word is the word of the one who denies it, and we did not find a text from them regarding the term's expiration. ((Al-Insaaf)) by al-Mardawi (328/4), ((Kashf al-Qina)) by al-Buhuti (238/3), ((Matla' Uli al-Nah)) by al-Rahibani (139/3). school of thought. This is because the one who denies it denies the fulfilment of the term, so the saying is his saying by his oath [2736] ((Al-'Anayah)) by al-Babarti (213/8), ((Hashiyat al-Shalbi 'ala Tabyeen al-Haqa'iq by al-Zailai)) (123/4). .

Twelfthly: Differences in the Damage of the Sold Item
If the parties involved in a sale differ regarding the damage to the sold item, and neither of them has evidence, then the word is the word of the seller. This is the school of thought of the Shafi'is [2737] ((Mughni al-Muhtaj)) by al-Sharbini (98/2), and refer to: ((Asna al-Matalib)) by Zakariya al-Ansari (118/2). and the Hanbalis [2738] ((Al-Kafi)) by Ibn Qudamah (45/2), ((Kashf al-Qina)) by al-Buhuti (286/3). .

This is for the following reasons:
Firstly, because it denies what the buyer claims, and the default is the absence of damage [2739] Refer to: ((Al-Kafi)) by Ibn Qudamah (45/2), ((Kashf al-Qina)) by al-Buhuti (286/3). .
Secondly, the default is soundness, and it is a matter of liability, and the saying in matters of liability is the saying of the one who is liable [2740] Refer to: ((Al-Kafi)) by Ibn Qudamah (45/2). .