Shaykh al-Islām was asked:

A man appointed someone to sell some goods on his behalf. The agent sold them on deferred payment, and part of the price became irrecoverable. May the owner demand their value payable immediately, or an amount equal to the deferred price, which is higher?

He answered:

If the owner had not authorized him to sell on deferred payment, the owner may choose between demanding that the seller pay their value immediately in cash and claiming the entire deferred price, with any shortfall borne by the owner of the goods. This is because acting without authorization is like the conduct of a usurper. If property is lost while in a usurper’s possession, leaving a substitute in its place, the owner may choose, in pursuing his claim, between compensation in general—an equivalent item or its value—and the particular substitute received.

This applies where the buyer was unaware of the usurpation, so that he is liable only for the stipulated price. If we adopt the view that contracts remain suspended pending ratification, then, if ratification has not been established but the two parties reach a settlement on the price and mutually agree to it, the liability for the lost property may validly be settled for an amount exceeding its value. This is comparable to their agreeing to fix the dower in a marriage in which it was left unspecified.