Likewise, in Mālik’s view, the same ruling applies to a father and to an executor.

Among the related issues is the case in which the principal gives the agent an unrestricted mandate to sell. Mālik stipulates that the agent may sell only for the market price, payable immediately and in the currency current in that land. He may not sell on deferred terms, in a foreign currency, or for other than the going price; the very same restrictions apply, in his view, to purchases.

Abū Ḥanīfah, by contrast, makes a distinction when a specific item is involved. He permits the agent, when selling, to accept less than the market price and to sell on credit. Yet if the principal appoints him to purchase a particular slave, the agent may buy him only for the market price and only for ready cash. It appears that Abū Ḥanīfah drew this distinction because, as he argues, just as a man may sell his own property for less than its usual value or on deferred terms for a benefit he perceives, so too may the agent, since he has been placed in the principal’s stead. The majority position, however, is the clearer proof.

In every instance where the agent is judged to have exceeded his mandate, he is liable for the resulting loss.

If the agent purchases something and the seller is informed that the purchase is for the principal, ownership passes directly to the principal. Abū Ḥanīfah holds that it first vests in the agent and only thereafter in the principal.

Should the agent discharge a debt on the principal’s behalf without summoning witnesses, and the creditor later denies receipt, the agent must make good the amount.

Chapter Three
Disputes Between Principal and Agent

Differences between principal and agent may arise in several ways: over the loss of property that has come into the agent’s hands; over whether the agent has delivered it to the principal; over the price for which he sold or bought when a specific price had been set; over the very object bought or sold; over the identity of the person to whom payment was to be made; or over an allegation of misconduct.

1. Loss of the entrusted property
   If the agent says, “It was lost while with me,” and the principal counters, “It was not lost,” the agent’s word prevails—provided he had taken possession without producing evidence. If the agent had collected money from the principal’s debtor and the debtor did not call witnesses to the payment, then, according to Mālik, the debtor is not discharged by the agent’s acknowledgment and must pay a second time. Whether the debtor may then sue the agent is disputed. If the payment was witnessed, the debtor is cleared and the agent bears no liability.

2. Delivery to the principal
   If the agent claims, “I handed it over to you,” and the principal says, “No, you did not,” three views are reported: one that the agent’s word is accepted; another that the principal’s word is accepted; and a third that, if a long time has elapsed, the agent’s word is accepted.

3. The price stipulated for a purchase
   When they disagree about the price at which the principal ordered a purchase, Ibn al-Qāsim says: if the commodity is still intact, the word of the purchaser—that is, the principal—prevails; if it is no longer available, the agent’s word prevails. Another view is that they should each swear an oath, the sale is rescinded, and each party returns what he received; if the commodity has perished, its value is repaid.

4. The price stipulated for a sale
   If the dispute concerns the price at which the principal ordered a sale, Ibn al-Qāsim maintains that the principal’s word prevails, for he treats receipt of the price as analogous to the loss of the commodity in the purchase case.

5. The person designated to receive payment
   Where they disagree about the person to whom payment was to be made, the Mālikī school records two opinions: the well-known one gives precedence to the statement of the person charged with payment—the agent—while another opinion prefers the statement of the one who issued the order—the principal.

6. Allegations of misconduct
   If the agent performs an act deemed improper and then claims that the principal instructed him to do so, the well-known view is that the principal’s denial takes precedence; a secondary view accepts the agent’s claim, arguing that he had been entrusted with the task.