marbehshalom:
You wrote that you agree with me that if “IF ADERET WILL EXPILICITY TELL EICHLERS AT THE TIME OF SALE ITS A RENTAL, Then it would not be relevant what the buyers deal with eichkers was. it was not eichlers to sell.”
But then you tell Daas Yochid (in the very same comment) that “If a particular buyer had no idea what it says on the jacket and had no idea of a rental , he cant be bound to a rental.”
Once we assume Aderet made the rental agreement with the retailer properly, even if the buyer had no idea that it is a rental, it is true that “he can’t be bound to a rental”, but that point is meaningless since the CD is still Aderet’s property and therefore the buyer cannot do with the CD anything against what Aderet (the CD owner) allows, since Aderet owns the CD that the buyer “bought”. So therefore the buyer couldn’t do anything that Aderet’s rental terms do not allow even if he never knew it is a rental.