According to this view of Mālik, if the agent knew of his principal’s death and made a sale, while the buyer was unaware of it, and the goods sold were lost while in the buyer’s possession, the agent would be liable for their value. This is because the agency had terminated in relation to him through his knowledge of the principal’s death, and he had wrongfully disposed of property over which he had no authority. The buyer, however, would not be required to return the income generated by the goods if they were recovered from him. If the agent was unaware of the principal’s death but the buyer knew, the buyer would have to return that income if the goods were recovered from him. If the agent was unaware of the principal’s death but the buyer knew, the buyer would have to return that income if the goods were recovered from him, because he acted wrongfully by making a purchase under an agency that had already terminated in relation to him.

This position of Mālik in the Book of Agency is equivalent to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in the Book of Partnership concerning two partners who dissolve their partnership, after which a debtor pays one of them. If the debtor knew of the dissolution, he is liable for the share of the partner whom he did not pay, and may recover from the recipient whatever he had to pay the partner who sought payment from him, since the agency had terminated through both parties’ knowledge. If the debtor did not know, he bears no liability, since the agency had not terminated in relation to him, as explained above. The partner who received payment, however, is liable for his partner’s share of what he received, since the agency had terminated in relation to him through his knowledge.

The third opinion is that the agent is not dismissed until he learns of his dismissal. Once he learns of it, he is dismissed both in relation to himself and in relation to anyone from whom he collects payment or with whom he transacts a sale. This is Ashhab’s position, for he said that if the agent knows of his dismissal but the debtor does not, the debtor is liable, unlike when neither of them knows.

If it is objected that he also said that the debtor is liable if he knows, even when the agent does not, and it is therefore suggested that the agency terminates in relation to both of them as soon as either one knows, we reply: We do not hold this, nor is it correct. He held the debtor liable when he knowingly paid while the agent remained unaware only because the debtor acted wrongfully in making the payment, not because the agency had terminated in relation to the agent. Do you not see that the debtor has no right to seek reimbursement from the agent if the money is lost while in the agent’s possession? The agency remains in force and has not terminated in relation to him, so the money is held by him in trust. Had the agency also terminated in relation to him, the debtor would have been entitled to recover from him whatever he had to pay the creditor. This is clear. Allah alone grants success; He has neither partner nor equal.