وَمَنْ بَاعَ عَبْدًا فَبَاعَهُ الْمُشْتَرِي ثُمَّ رُدَّ عَلَيْهِ بِعَيْبٍ، فَإِنْ قَبِلَهُ بِقَضَاءِ الْقَاضِي فَلَهُ أَنْ يَرُدَّهُ عَلَى بَائِعِهِ، وَإِنْ قَبِلَهُ بِغَيْرِ قَضَاءِ الْقَاضِي فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أَنْ يَرُدَّهُ
Translation: If goods sold on were returned to the intermediate buyer for a defect, a judicially imposed return lets that buyer proceed against the earlier seller; voluntary acceptance without a judge’s ruling does not carry the same right.
The source uses a historical enslaved-person transaction. For a property analogy:
1. Zayd buys a specified machine from Bakr.
2. Zayd resells it to Khalid.
3. Khalid returns it claiming a defect.
4. Zayd’s recourse against Bakr differs depending on whether the return was ordered by a judge or simply accepted voluntarily.