he remains liable if, on returning it, the beast is exhausted, its body and legs noticeably altered. The same applies when the trespass lasts for many days—unless the owner chooses to approve the excess and simply take the going hire for that extra portion.

This is the well-known view in the Mālikī school concerning one who leases a particular animal for a specified destination and then proceeds beyond it to a place that is farther away or more arduous, thereby exceeding what was agreed. In such a case the owner has a choice:

1. He may take from the trespassing lessee the stipulated hire and, in addition, the market-rate hire for the distance exceeded, while the animal reverts to him whether it returns damaged or sound; or
2. He may confine himself to the hire up to the named destination and hold the lessee liable for the animal from the point where the excess began, regardless of whether it later survives or perishes.

This stricter liability is waived only when the overstep is slight—such as a brief detour for a minor purpose, or choosing another route that is equal, or nearly equal, in distance, nearness, hardship, and ease.

Such is the distilled doctrine according to most of Mālik’s disciples. A report from him and a group of his companions states that, if the animal returns unharmed, the owner is entitled only to the stipulated hire, or to its equivalent for the excess, provided the beast comes back in its original condition; but if it is ruined, the owner then enjoys the two-fold choice mentioned above. This is also the position of the Seven Jurists, the senior scholars of Medina.

Ismāʿīl said: The sound opinion regarding one who hires a beast for a certain place but then takes it to a more distant one is that, if it perishes, he must compensate for it, and if it returns safe