Is an oath not to part ways broken if the creditor parts ways after believing he has fully satisfied his debt, but the payment is later found to be counterfeit or incomplete?

Primary text

There are two narrations regarding breaking the oath in this scenario, depending on the ruling concerning the forgetful person. One view states the oath is broken, supported by Malik, because the creditor departed while still having a right, and this departure was by choice. The second view states the oath is not broken, supported by Abu Thawr and the Ashab al-Ra'y, provided the found counterfeit amount is small, although if most of it is copper, the oath is broken. If the debt is found to be claimed by a rightful third party, the ruling follows the two narrations based on the forgetful person scenario, as the creditor mistakenly believed his right was fulfilled.