that if the agent’s action is beneficial to the principal, it should be carried out. For the principal to insist on the local currency when what he sold it for is more valuable is nothing but causing harm. The Prophet ﷺ said: “There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.” (1)
“If he sells for less than the market price, or for less than the amount stipulated for him, or buys for him at more than the market price or more than the amount stipulated for him, the transaction is valid, and he is liable for the shortfall or excess …”
His statement, “If he sells for less than the market price”: this is an action contrary to the agency, but it does not contravene it with respect to the essence of the contract; rather, it concerns a characteristic of the contract. Therefore, the sale is valid, while he is liable.
For example, he says to him, “Sell my car.” Comparable cars sell for forty thousand, but he sells it for thirty-five thousand.
The author says that the sale is valid because another person—the buyer—has acquired a right through it, and his right should not be invalidated because of another person’s poor conduct. Moreover, the agency did not go beyond selling: that is, he did not give it away to someone, provide it as capital for a profit-sharing venture, or dedicate it as an endowment. Rather, he sold it, but he acted contrary to the stipulated characteristic. For when I say, “Sell the car,” I only mean that you should sell it at the market price.
Accordingly, the sale is valid, and the agent is liable for the shortfall, because it is understood that an unrestricted authorization is construed according to what people customarily recognize, namely the market price. Thus, the agent sold it for thirty-five thousand when its market value was forty thousand. The car therefore remains with the buyer, since the sale is valid, while the agent must compensate the owner of the car with five thousand riyals, which is the amount of the shortfall. If he pardons him, that right belongs to him.
The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that he is liable in all cases, even if he exercised independent judgment.