and if he actually reached the town and then died, while the person for whom the goods were intended denies ever having received them, the deceased’s heirs have only to swear by Allah that they know nothing about the merchandise; once they take that oath they are cleared, but if they refuse to swear they must pay.

If the intended recipient dies after the courier has arrived in the town, and the courier claims he handed the goods over to him, his claim is not accepted unless he brings proof of delivery.

Should the courier reach the town yet fail to deliver the goods, and upon returning finds no trace of them and alleges that they were lost, he is liable for their value.

Anyone who is entrusted with merchandise and then denies possessing it, only to admit it later, is liable—­and the same ruling applies to a deposit-holder who does so.

If a man instructs someone to buy a commodity on his own credit, bring it to him, and then receive its price from him, and the agent does purchase and take possession of it but it perishes in his hand before he can deliver it to the principal, the loss falls on the principal.

Should the principal hand the agent the price after the item has already perished, and that money is then lost, the liability likewise rests with the principal.

If the agent brings the commodity and the principal gives him its price so that he may take it to the seller, and that money is lost while still with the agent, the principal remains liable for it until it reaches the seller.

However, if the courier had already paid the price out of his own pocket, then brought the commodity to the principal and received reimbursement, and that money is later lost while in the courier’s possession, he bears no liability, for he has recovered nothing more than a debt that was owed to him.

When someone receives goods from a group in order to buy wheat for them, mixes their funds together for ease of handling, and the whole amount is lost, he is not liable; but if only part is lost, they all share—according to their respective shares—in what was lost and in what remains.

The same applies if he uses all their funds to buy food in a single transaction, intending to divide it among them according to their contributions, and the food is destroyed: the loss is shared by all of them.

This ruling holds when they all instructed him to buy the same grade of wheat; but if their specifications differed, then