Is the price still recoverable?

One fictional sale — formation, return for a latent defect, surety of the price, creditor default, and an elapsed limitation on the price claim — asked in plain words. The model searches, reads the rule, and puts the case facts to Arxo Law.

We have a sale under the UAE Civil Transactions Law. The seller offered, the buyer accepted. The thing had a hidden defect; the buyer gave notice of return. There was a kafala of the price. On delivery the buyer refused the offered performance, was put in default, and the court permitted a deposit. The price claim is due; the buyer denies it; the limitation period has elapsed; the court has found there is no acceptable excuse. Is the price still recoverable?

That is a limitation question over a price claim, not something I will answer from memory. I will put the question to Arxo Law and see which addresses it returns.

The search names TimeBarExcludesRemedy and the comparative head remedium_exclusum. Before I supply any facts I want the rule itself — it will say which premises the head needs.

I will supply only the empirical facts you stated — offer and acceptance, the sale and the defect return, the kafala, the creditor default and deposit permission, the claim joins, the elapsed period — and the court's finding that there is no acceptable excuse. I will not invent institutional conclusions such as "claim not heard" or "remedy excluded"; those are for the engine to derive.

TRUE_ONLY — the remedy for the price claim is excluded. That is the engine's answer, not mine. It applied twenty-eight rules across six packages (contract, sale, kafala, performance, temporal, and the comparative dictionary). Many of those rules fire on the same world — formation, return, surety, creditor default — but they are not premises of TimeBarExcludesRemedy: the measured exclusum spine is depth five. Elapsed status was a fact you supplied; the slice does not count days. So no: on these facts the price is not still recoverable.