Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/367)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and acted with full diligence, but it later became clear that the prices of the goods had risen without his knowing. The correct view is that in this case he is not liable, because he exercised independent judgment and was careful. Indeed, if the principal himself had sold under these circumstances, he would have excused himself; the agent likewise should be excused. Were we to hold him liable in such a case, agency would never be workable, for every agent could say, “The value may have risen without my knowing.” Thus, if a man has exercised independent judgment and taken due care, but something occurred beyond his control and cannot reasonably be attributed to negligence on his part, then the correct view is that he bears no liability.

His statement, “or for less than the amount stipulated for him”: this is the second scenario. For example, he says, “Sell this car for forty thousand,” while comparable cars on the market sell for thirty-five thousand. The agent then sells it for thirty-five thousand, which is its market price. The author says that the sale is valid, but that the agent is liable for the shortfall in every case—five thousand—because the owner of the car specified the price, saying, “Sell it for forty thousand,” whereas this agent sold it for thirty-five thousand. If the agent says, “I sold it for its equivalent market price, and it is worth no more than that,” we say: But the principal specified a price for you.

If someone were to ask: Why is the contract not invalidated from the outset?

We would reply: Because the man did not contravene the fundamental nature of the contract. The agent intended to sell it, and he did sell it. The only harm to the principal lies in the shortfall, for which the agent will be held liable.

His statement, “or buys for him at more than the market price”: this is the third scenario. For example, you say to a man, “Buy me a recorder.” He goes and buys a recorder for four hundred riyals, though it is worth two hundred. The purchase is valid because a third party’s right has become attached to it, but the agent is liable for the excess.

وتصرف تصرفاً تاماً، لكن تبين أن السلع قد زادت وهو لا يعلم، والصحيح أنه لا يضمن في هذه الحال لأنه مجتهد وحريص، بل لو باع الموكل في هذه الحال لَعَذَرَ نفسه، كذلك ـ أيضاً ـ الوكيل، ولو قلنا بأنه يضمن في هذه الحال ما استقامت الوكالة أبداً؛ لأن كل وكيل يقول: يحتمل أن تكون القيمة قد زادت ولم أدرِ، فإذا كان الرجل قد اجتهد وتحرى ولكن أتى أمرٌ بغير اختياره ولا يحتمل تفريطه، فالصواب أنه لا ضمان عليه. قوله: «أو دون ما قدره له» هذه الصورة الثانية بأن قال: بع هذه السيارة بأربعين ألفاً، ومثلها في السوق بخمسة وثلاثين ألفاً، فباعها بخمسة وثلاثين، كما هو سعرها في السوق، يقول المؤلف: إن البيع صحيح، وعليه ضمان النقص بكل حال وهو خمسة آلاف؛ لأن صاحب السيارة حدد الثمن فقال: بع بأربعين، وهذا باع بخمسة وثلاثين، فإذا قال الوكيل: أنا بعت بثمن المثل ولا تساوي أكثر من هذا، قلنا: لكن الموكل حدد لك. فإذا قال قائل: لماذا لا يبطل العقد من أصله؟ قلنا: لأن هذا الرجل لم يخالف في أصل العقد؛ لأن الوكيل أراد أن يبيعها فباعها، ولا ضرر عليه إلا في النقص وسوف يُضمن. قوله: «أو اشترى له بأكثر من ثمن المثل» هذه الصورة الثالثة، مثاله قلت لرجل: اشترِ لي مسجلاً فذهب واشترى مسجلاً بأربعمائة ريال وهو يساوي مائتين يصح الشراء؛ لأنه تعلق به حق ثالث، لكن الوكيل يضمن الزيادة.