to argue a case or know how to litigate. Yet the person from whom I am seeking my due is strong in litigation. He may say to him, “I owe you nothing, and I owe your principal nothing.” If my agent appointed to receive payment litigates with him, he will overcome him. Thus, what the author said here requires further consideration.

Rather, we say: if he appoints him to receive payment, he does not have authority to litigate, unless he says, “And if you need to litigate, then do so.” If he appoints him to receive payment and he then goes to the debtor, who says, “I have nothing,” he should return to his principal and say, “The man has denied it. Will you appoint me to litigate, or appoint someone else?” For a person is not obliged, when appointed as an agent for something, to complete it, because agency is a non-binding contract. Thus, if he demands the due and the one who owes it says, “I owe your principal nothing,” he must refrain and not litigate, for he may litigate and be defeated even though the right is on his side, because his opponent is a fierce adversary while he himself is weak. Therefore, we say: an agent appointed to receive payment has no authority to litigate except by specific authorization.

His statement: “If he says, ‘Collect my due from Zayd,’ he may not collect it from his heirs.” If he appoints him to collect his due from Zayd, saying, “So-and-so, Zayd owes me ten thousand riyals, and you are my agent to collect them,” and the agent goes to Zayd and finds that he has died, then the wealth passes to his heirs. May he collect it from the heirs?

The author says: He may not collect it from the heirs, because agency is restricted by the terms stipulated by the principal, and the principal said, “Collect…”