What is the ruling regarding choosing dissolution (Faskh) versus replacement if a defect is discovered after separation?

Primary text

If the discoverer of the defect chooses to keep the replacement when offered, they do not have the right to dissolution, as it is possible for them to obtain their unblemished right. This is according to the ruling where replacement is permitted. On the other narration, the party has the option to dissolve the entire contract or retain everything, because the party was prevented from obtaining what they contracted for while maintaining the contract.