The second is that the principal entrusted him with it; and once he has entrusted him, it is not proper for him to turn around and accuse him of dishonesty without cause or legally established proof.

Likewise, his statement regarding the loss—that is, the destruction of the property—is accepted. For example, if he says, “I took this item from you to sell it on your behalf, but it was destroyed,” his statement is accepted.

Is the principal’s request for details accepted? That is, may the principal ask, “What caused it to be destroyed?”

The answer is that the agent is not required to explain how it was destroyed; it is sufficient for him to say, “It was destroyed.” When he says that it was destroyed, he is a trustee; however, an oath is still required, as will follow. But if the agent claims that the loss occurred through an evident cause—for example, he says, “The property was destroyed because my shop burned down”—then the cause is now apparent, and he is told, “Produce evidence that it burned down.” This is necessary. If he produces evidence, his statement that the property entrusted to him was among the property that was destroyed is accepted.

Likewise, if he says that the shop collapsed upon it, we say, “Produce evidence,” because the collapse of the shop is an evident cause. If he produces evidence and says that the property entrusted to him was among the property destroyed by the collapse of the shop, his statement is accepted.

The conclusion, then, is that his statement concerning the destruction is accepted—the author referred to this as loss—and he is not required to provide details. Thus, he is not asked, “What caused it to be destroyed? How was it destroyed? When was it destroyed?” But if he claims that it occurred through an evident cause, saying, “The shop burned down,” or “The rains fell and demolished the building,” or