What is the ruling if the first claimant refuses to assert the full claim or insists on taking only his share until his partners arrive?

Primary text

There are two views regarding the first claimant's refusal to claim the entirety until his partners arrive, or stating, 'I will take only my share.' The first view states that his right is voided because he was capable of taking all or leaving it, thus resembling an individual who has no partner. The second view maintains that his right is not voided because his relinquishment was due to an excuse, specifically the fear of the absent partners' arrival. The right is therefore maintained, as relinquishing due to a valid excuse does not nullify preemption, evidenced by the case where a claimant waives preemption because the buyer appeared to offer a high price, only for that to turn out untrue later.