also misled if he was unaware. Whether he is to be held liable is disputed in the school of Ahmad and others; this is also one of al-Shāfiʿī’s two views. The person who misled him bears no liability, nor is either of them held liable, and he has no recourse against the person who misled him, according to the better-known of al-Shāfiʿī’s two views and one report from Imam Ahmad. On this basis, the buyer is liable and has no recourse against anyone.

The second view:

His agency terminates upon the principal’s death, but dismissal does not terminate it until he learns of it. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa, the well-known position in Mālik’s school, and one of the views in the schools of al-Shāfiʿī and Imam Ahmad. Accordingly, his transactions before learning of his dismissal are valid. Thus, the sale is valid if the man was unaware of his dismissal. If, however, he acted after learning of his dismissal, his transaction is not binding, by agreement of the Muslims. Rather, it is treated as a transaction undertaken by an unauthorized person. Such a transaction is rejected in the school of al-Shāfiʿī and according to the well-known position reported from Imam Ahmad. In the school of Abū Hanīfa and according to the other report from Imam Ahmad, its validity is suspended pending ratification; this has also been related from Mālik. If the entitled party does not ratify it, it is void by unanimous agreement.

The third view:

His agency does not terminate in either case before he learns of it. This accords with a view held by al-Shāfiʿī and Imam Ahmad—may Allah be pleased with them both. The ruling in this case is as stated above. And Allah, glorified and exalted be He, knows best.