This is why he said, “It becomes binding upon the purchaser if it is not ratified,” meaning: if it is not ratified.

“as his property,” meaning: the purchaser’s property. He acquires ownership of it from the moment of the contract; accordingly, the milk belongs to the purchaser. This is the only case in which an unauthorized person’s transaction is valid according to the madhhab.

However, if he purchases it for him using his actual money, rather than as a liability upon himself, the sale is invalid. For example, if he says to the sheep seller, “Give me a sheep for these dirhams,” intending it for so-and-so, the contract is invalid, because he purchased it for him with his actual money, not as a liability upon himself. Likewise, if he names him and says to the owner of the sheep, “I have bought this sheep from you for one hundred on behalf of so-and-so,” then leads the sheep away and delivers it to so-and-so, who accepts it, the sale is invalid, because he named him in the contract. Once he names him in the contract, his purchase on that person’s behalf becomes an agency transaction, yet that person did not appoint him as his agent. This is why they said: if he names him in the contract, the sale is invalid, because by naming him in the contract he places himself in the position of an agent, whereas in reality he was not appointed as one.

The second view on this issue is that it is valid, as we mentioned previously: if the person on whose behalf the unauthorized transaction was made ratifies it, it is valid. We have already mentioned the evidence and reasoning for this.

If he does not ratify it, it becomes binding upon the purchaser. The purchaser therefore has no right to return it to the seller and say, “I bought it for so-and-so, but he did not accept it.” The seller may refuse and say, “You bought it from me as the purchaser, so it is binding upon you.”

If someone were to ask: Is it preferable for the person for whom the purchase was made to accept that contract, or is it preferable that he not accept it?”