His statement, “or for more than the amount he stipulated for him”: this is the fourth scenario. For example, he says to him, “Buy me a watch of such-and-such brand,” and it is sold for forty riyals. But the watch seller is a friend of the agent, so he buys it for forty-five. We say: the purchase is valid, because the principal’s objective has been achieved; however, we hold the agent liable for the amount above the market price, which is five riyals.

If the agent says, “The principal set forty as the amount for me, but the price rose, and I bought it for what it was worth, as is known from all the watch shops: its value is forty-five,”

we say: But the principal specified an amount for you. Why did you not return to him and tell him that the price had risen, and then see whether he would continue with the agency or not?

His statement, “and he is liable for the shortfall”: this applies when he sells for less than the market price, or for less than the amount stipulated for him; he is liable for the shortfall.

His statement, “and the excess”: this applies when he purchases for more than the market price, or for more than the amount stipulated for him. Among rhetoricians, this is called ordered pairing and elaboration: sometimes the pairing and elaboration is unordered, such that the second matter is mentioned first, then the first.

An example is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “On the Day when some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces have turned black...” [Al Imran 3:106]. This is unordered pairing and elaboration. By contrast, His saying: “Among them are the wretched and the blessed,” followed by, “As for those who were wretched,” and then, “As for those who were blessed” [Hud 11:105–108]—this is ordered pairing and elaboration.

If someone were to ask: Which is the original pattern: that the pairing and elaboration be ordered, or that it be unordered?