If someone were to ask: What is the benefit of bringing witnesses when the depositary’s statement is accepted regarding his having returned the deposit?

The answer is that he may not claim to have returned it. He may have sufficient faith to prevent him from claiming that he returned it when he did not, yet he may forget and then deny the deposit, saying, “You never left anything with me as a deposit.” In that case, if there are no witnesses, the deposit will be lost; but if there are witnesses, it will not be lost, because they will establish it. Thus, failing to bring witnesses constitutes negligence on the agent’s part, and he is liable.

The reasoning behind the author’s statement is that the depositary’s word is accepted if he claims to have returned the deposit, so there is no benefit in bringing witnesses—even if he acknowledges it, saying, “You did leave it with me as a deposit, but I returned it.”

We say: this reasoning is sound in one respect, but flawed in another. We say that witnesses should be brought out of fear of forgetfulness, as mentioned above.

Thus, the established school’s position is that he is never liable. The second view is that he is always liable; this is a view mentioned by the author of al-Ri'ayah. The third view distinguishes between cases in which failing to bring witnesses is considered negligence and those in which it is not: where it is deemed negligence, he is liable; where it is not, he is not liable. This is the stronger view.