Is there a distinction based on the third party's knowledge regarding the invalidity caused by the inability to deliver the sold item?

Primary text

There is a potential distinction between one who knows that inability to deliver renders the sale void and one who does not know this. The one who knows that the sale is void believes the transaction to be void, rendering their sale invalid due to perceived mockery of their own statement. The one who is ignorant believes the transaction to be valid, and since all conditions for validity are subsequently met, the transaction is valid, as if they had known possession was possible.