did not undertake the agency on the understanding that he would be beaten and imprisoned over money demanded on account of the property, suffering harm rather than paying it. The case of an unrelated third party is different. Yet this very argument also applies to either partner, since each acts as the other’s agent in a contractual partnership. A distinction should also be made between governmental levies and incidental acts of oppression.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man sent some cloth with another man to deliver to his son in Cairo. The man entrusted with carrying it did not deliver it, but instead sold it and disposed of it. He sold it to someone other than a cloth merchant, for payment other than the customary currency, without the cloth’s owner authorizing him to do so. Does this constitute negligence? If he was negligent, must he pay its value? Whose account of its loss is to be accepted: that of the cloth’s owner or that of the man entrusted with carrying it? Please give us a ruling; may you be rewarded.

He answered:

If he disposed of it without its owner’s permission, he acted wrongfully and became liable for it. If it can no longer be recovered, he must pay its value. If the custodian says, “You instructed me to sell it,” while the owner says, “I did not instruct you to sell it, but to deliver it to my son,” there is scholarly disagreement concerning this.

However, if he sold it in a manner departing from customary sales—for example, on deferred payment, for something other than the currency of the locality, or to an ignorant or insolvent person, or the like—then he is liable in all cases for any loss of the purchase price.