the objective is to achieve the best outcome, so the matter is directed toward what is most beneficial. As for two partners [if they disagree] on returning defective goods, the one requesting the return has the right to return his share, and the other may keep his share, unless the seller did not know that the purchase was for both of them, in which case he is not obligated to accept the return of only a part, because the apparent situation is that the contract is for the one who conducted it, and it is not permissible to cause harm to the seller by splitting the transaction against him. If the one who conducted the contract wants to return some of the sold goods and keep the rest, its ruling is the ruling as if his partner wanted that, according to what we have detailed.

Section: He does not have the right to purchase someone who would be emancipated upon the owner of the capital without his permission, because it causes him harm. If he purchases him with the permission of the owner of the capital, it is valid, because it is permissible for him to purchase him himself, so if he permits another to do so, it is permissible, and he becomes free upon him, and the Mudaraba contract is annulled to the extent of his price, because it has been destroyed, and it is counted against the owner of the capital. If his price equals the entire capital, the Mudaraba is annulled. If there is profit in the capital, the agent may seek his share of it. If it is without the permission of the owner of the capital, it is possible that the purchase is not valid if the price was the specific capital, because the agent purchased something he is not permitted to purchase, so it is in the position of one who buys something for more than its price; and because permission in a Mudaraba contract is only intended for what can be sold and profited from, so it does not extend beyond that. If he purchased him on credit, the purchase becomes binding on the one who entered the contract, and he has no right to pay the price from the Mudaraba capital; if he does so, he is liable. [This is the opinion] of al-Shafi'i and the majority of jurists. The Qadi said: The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is the validity of the purchase, because it is valuable property subject to contracts, so its purchase is valid, just as if he purchased someone whose owner had vowed to emancipate, and he becomes free upon the owner of the capital, and the Mudaraba is annulled regarding him.