Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (30/54)

Chapter on Agency

Shaykh al-Islām—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man appointed another man to collect debts owed to him, then dismissed him and demanded from him the outstanding balance. The agent who had handled these affairs then drew up a mutual release between himself and the debtor without the principal’s authorization. Is the discharge valid?

He replied:

If the terms of his appointment do not establish that he was authorized to discharge debts, his discharge of a debt owed to the principal is not valid. If, however, he acknowledges that a discharge was granted, his acknowledgment is accepted concerning matters within the scope of his agency—as when someone appointed to receive payment acknowledges having received it. Allah knows best.

He was also asked:

A man appoints a broker to purchase an item for him. The broker purchases it for him and takes a fee from the seller for the sale to him at that price. What is the ruling?

بَابُ الْوَكَالَةِ سُئِلَ شَيْخُ الْإِسْلَامِ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ -: عَنْ رَجُلٍ وَكَّلَ رَجُلًا فِي قَبْضِ دُيُونٍ لَهُ ثُمَّ صَرَفَهُ وَطَالَبَهُ بِمَا بَقِيَ عَلَيْهِ ثُمَّ إنْ الْوَكِيلُ الْمُتَصَرِّفُ كَتَبَ مُبَارَأَةً بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ مَنْ عَلَيْهِ الدَّيْنُ بِغَيْرِ أَمْرِ الْمُوَكِّلِ. فَهَلْ يَصِحُّ الْإِبْرَاءُ؟ فَأَجَابَ: إنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي وَكَالَتِهِ إثْبَاتُ مَا يَقْتَضِي أَنَّهُ مَأْذُونٌ لَهُ فِي الْإِبْرَاءِ لَمْ يَصِحَّ إبْرَاؤُهُ مِنْ دَيْنٍ هُوَ ثَابِتٌ لِلْمُوَكِّلِ وَإِنْ كَانَ أَقَرَّ بِالْإِبْرَاءِ قَبْلَ إقْرَارِهِ فِيمَا هُوَ وَكِيلٌ فِيهِ: كَالتَّوْكِيلِ بِالْقَبْضِ إذَا أَقَرَّ بِذَلِكَ. وَاَللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ. وَسُئِلَ: عَنْ رَجُلٍ يُوَكِّلُ الدَّلَّالَ فِي أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ لَهُ سِلْعَةً فَيَشْتَرِيَهَا لَهُ وَيَأْخُذُ مِنْ الْبَائِعِ جُعْلًا عَلَى أَنْ بَاعَهَا لَهُ بِذَلِكَ الثَّمَنِ؟