The first is when the item deposited is of negligible value, such that it is not customary to bring witnesses for it.

The second is when the depositary is a man outstandingly known for his integrity, and it is customary not to bring witnesses when depositing something with him, because everyone regards him as trustworthy. In this case, we say that the one who was appointed as an agent to make the deposit is not liable, since no one would consider him negligent.

An example is a man who gives someone ten riyals and says, “I am going to travel. Take these ten riyals and leave them as a deposit with so-and-so.” He gives them to him, so is he liable if he does not bring witnesses?

The answer is no, because it is an item of negligible value. If this agent were to go and bring two witnesses, saying, “Bear witness that I gave this man ten riyals as a deposit,” people would undoubtedly regard him as foolish and would not consider this appropriate.

Another example: a man gives someone some money and says, “Leave it in trust with someone who will keep it safe for me.” The man then goes to someone outstandingly known for his integrity—trustworthy, learned, devout, and careful—who is not so forgetful that one might say he has become senile and forgotten, and he deposits it with him. It is not customary to bring witnesses for such a person.

Thus, the correct view is that if an agent entrusted with making a deposit does not bring witnesses, he is liable if he is considered negligent; otherwise, he is not. But when is he considered negligent?

We say: he is negligent whenever he does not bring witnesses, except in two cases: either because the deposit is of negligible value, or because of the standing of the depositary.