What is the evidence for establishing preemption only on the property share when bundled with an exempt item?

Primary text

Preemption is only established on the property share because the accompanying item, such as a sword, is not subject to preemption, nor is it legally dependent on the item subject to preemption, meaning it cannot be taken by right of preemption as if sold separately. Any resulting harm to the buyer is self-inflicted because he combined in the contract what is subject to preemption with what is not. Furthermore, taking the entire bundle would cause harm to the buyer, especially if his intention was to retain the non-preemptable item, and taking it without a valid basis for preemption over it constitutes harm.