a riyal, the price of the bag, for him to give to the grocer. The neighbor took the riyal and gave it to the grocer, saying, “This is on behalf of the man who took a bag of bread from you.” There were no witnesses. Later, when the grocer came across the purchaser, he said, “Give me the price of the bread.” He replied, “I gave it to my neighbor, and he paid it to you.” The grocer said, “He gave me nothing.” In this case, the neighbor is liable for the riyal, because he did not have two witnesses attest to the payment.

However, it should be said that every situation has its appropriate ruling. Large and significant sums of money must be witnessed; if he fails to do so, he has been negligent. But in the case of a small amount for which it is customary not to procure witnesses, he is not deemed negligent, since the debtor entrusted him and accepted his trustworthiness.

The correct view in this matter is that he is not liable, because this agent may say to the one who appointed him: “Had you gone to settle this one riyal yourself, you would not have procured witnesses. So how can you deem me negligent when you yourself would do exactly what I did?”

If the shopkeeper gives the agent a receipt stating that he received the payment, then the presumption is that an acknowledgment is accepted; thus, giving a receipt suffices in place of witnesses.

“And if he stipulates that the pledgee is not to sell it when the debt falls due, or that if the pledgor brings him his due by such-and-such a time, otherwise the pledged property belongs to him, the condition alone is invalid, ............”

His statement, “And if he stipulates”: the subject is the pledgor.

His statement, “that he is not to sell it,” means: the pledgee.

His statement, “when the debt falls due”: an example is that he says, “I have pledged you this car for fifty thousand, on the condition that you do not sell it when the debt falls due.” The pledge is valid, but the condition is invalid. If someone were to hold that both the pledge and the condition are invalid, that would have some basis, because if we were to validate this condition, it would conflict with what the contract requires. The purpose of the contract is security, so if he is not to sell it when the debt falls due, where is the security? Yet the school’s position is that the contract is valid and the condition invalid,