a principle concerning contracts whose validity remains pending approval: when a person acts in a matter affecting another’s rights without that person’s permission, is his action invalid, or does it remain subject to that person’s ratification?

There are two well-known positions, both transmitted from Ahmad. The first is that such an action is generally invalid, though certain distinctions are reported from him. Unconditional invalidity is al-Shāfiʿī’s position. The second is that it remains pending ratification; this is the position of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik. This applies to marriage, sale, lease, and other contracts.

The apparent position of Ahmad’s school is that, when the person acting is excused because he cannot seek permission and needs to act, his action remains subject to ratification, without dispute. If, however, he could have sought permission, or had no need to act, then the matter is disputed.

The first case is exemplified by someone holding property whose owners he does not know, such as wrongfully appropriated property, borrowed items, and the like, when he is unable to identify its owners and has lost hope of doing so. The position of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, and Ahmad is that he should give it in charity on their behalf. If they subsequently appear, they have the choice between ratifying his action and requiring compensation.

This is among the rulings established by the Sunnah concerning lost property: after publicly announcing it, the finder takes it for his own use and disposes of it. If its owner then appears, he has the choice between ratifying the finder’s action and demanding his property back. Thus, the action remains subject to ratification; here, however, seeking permission was impossible, and there was a need to act.

Likewise, when someone makes a bequest exceeding one-third of his estate, his bequest remains subject to the heirs’ approval