Is the buyer entitled to return an item, claiming a defect in it three days after receiving it, knowing that the seller did not notice any defect during a month of use, and that the item's first owner confirmed its freedom from defects for five years?

If it is proven that the merchandise is defective, the buyer has the option to either return it or keep it and take compensation for the defect (the difference between its value when defective and when sound).

If the seller and buyer disagree on the time the defect occurred, with both of their claims being plausible, the predominant opinion is the seller's statement under oath, contrary to the Hanbalis.

If the buyer's claim is improbable, for instance, if it becomes apparent that the defect occurred after the contract, then the seller's statement is accepted without an oath.

However, if it is plausible that the defect occurred either before or after the contract, then the seller's statement under oath is accepted. But if the seller refuses to swear an oath, the buyer then has the option.