Another example: an agent is appointed to purchase a watch. He buys the watch, then places it in his house on a shelf within the reach of children. The children take the watch and damage it; he is then liable, because he was negligent.

Another example: you appoint him to buy a watch for you, and he buys it. Then, having forgotten his own watch at home, he puts the watch he bought for you on his wrist—that is, he uses it—and something happens to it and breaks it. He is then liable, because this constitutes transgression.

Another example: he buys the watch and places it on a high shelf beyond the children’s reach. However, one of the children is particularly mischievous: he brings a ladder, climbs up to the shelf, takes the watch, and breaks it. In this case, he is not liable, because this involves neither transgression nor negligence. It is customary for people to keep watches and similar items on high shelves away from children, but this child acted outside what is customary.

In all cases, if an item in his possession perishes through transgression or negligence, he is liable; but if it perishes without transgression or negligence, he is not liable.

His statement, “His word is accepted,” means: the agent’s word.

His statement, “in denying it,” means: in denying negligence.

His statement, “and regarding destruction, with his oath,” means that his statement concerning the loss of the property is accepted, but only with his oath. This is because whenever we rule that a person’s statement is accepted in a matter relating to the rights of other people, an oath is required. Thus, if the principal says, “You were negligent,” and the agent replies, “I was not negligent,” then the agent’s statement is accepted for two reasons:

The first is that the basic presumption is the absence of negligence.