Ibn Khawiz Mandad nonetheless claimed that, as they understand Mālik’s school, the principal is not bound by the agent’s admission—this, he said, applies only to an agent who has not been given plenary (mufawwaḍ) authority.

He added that the jurists unanimously agree that when someone says, “Whatever I admit concerning so-and-so is binding on him,” that admission is not binding on the other person. By contrast, whatever the fully authorized agent acknowledges—whether collecting a debt, releasing a debtor, or handing over money to the person who appointed him—Mālik accepts the agent’s word in all such matters. No oath is required of him unless suspicion attaches to him, in which case he must swear.

Mālik also said: Any act performed by the fully authorized agent after the principal’s death is effective and binding on the heirs, provided the agent was unaware of the death. If he knew that the principal had died and nevertheless acted without involving the heirs, he is deemed to have overstepped, and he must guarantee any loss caused by his decision and action.

Mālik expressed two opinions regarding a case where the principal dismisses his agent, calls witnesses to the dismissal, and the agent—unaware of it—then carries out the task he had been commissioned to perform. One report from Mālik holds that every transaction the agent undertakes thereafter is void, whether or not he knew of the dismissal; this is also the position of Ibn al-Qāsim, and it is the view I adopt, by analogy with their consensus that if a man appoints an agent to sell something and then sells it himself, the agency is thereby terminated and the agent dismissed, even though the agent may be unaware of it. Another report from Mālik, however, states that if the agent knew of the dismissal his subsequent act is invalid, but if he did not know, his act remains valid, for he is acting on the authority originally conferred upon him.