Section: Whenever they specify a price for him, he is not permitted to sell it for less than that. If they leave it unrestricted, he may sell it for the equivalent price or more. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He may sell it even for dirhams (16), and the discussion regarding him is covered under Agency (Wakalah). If they leave it unrestricted, and he sells it for less than the equivalent price—an amount that people typically overlook/excuse—it is valid, and he is not liable, because that is generally not strictly regulated. If the deficiency is of an amount that people do not typically overlook, or he sells it for less than what they (17) specified for him, the sale is valid, but he is fully liable for the deficiency. Our companions have stated this. The more correct view is that the sale is not valid, because it is a sale for which he was not given permission, so it resembles the case where he contradicts them regarding the currency.

Section: If the neutral party sells the pledge with their permission and collects the price, then it perishes in his hand without any negligence on his part, he is not liable, because he is a trustee (amin), so he is like an agent. We do not know of any disagreement regarding this, and it is the liability of the pledgor. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa and Malik said: It is the liability of the pledgee, because the sale is for his sake. Our argument is that he is the agent of the pledgor in the sale, and the price is the pledgor's property, and he is a trustee for him in receiving it, so if it perishes, it is the liability of his principal, like all other trustees. If he claims it perished, his statement is accepted along with his oath, because he is a trustee, and it is difficult for him to provide evidence for that. If we burdened him with requiring evidence, it would be difficult for him, and it might lead to people avoiding entering into positions of trust. If they disagree with him regarding the receipt of the price, saying, "He did not receive it from the purchaser," and he claims that he did, there are two views: one is that his statement is accepted, because he is a trustee. The other is that it is not accepted, because this acts as an exoneration of the purchaser from the price, so his word is not accepted regarding it, just as if he had exonerated him from something other than the price. If the sold item is discovered to be a rightful claim of another (mustahaq), the liability rests with the pledgor, not the neutral party, provided he had informed the purchaser that he was an agent. This applies to every agent who sells the property of another. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: The liability is on the agent, and the discussion with him is covered under Agency. If the purchaser learns after the price has perished in the hands of the neutral party, he has recourse against the pledgor, and there is nothing on the neutral party. If it is said: Then why...