and litigation regarding it, due to his knowledge that the receipt depends upon it. If he does not know that, it is not an appointment for it because he lacks knowledge of the dependence of the receipt upon it. There is no difference between whether the right is a specific object ('ayn) or a debt (dayn). Some of the followers of Abu Hanifa said: If he appoints him to receive a specific object, he does not possess the right to establish it, because he is an agent for moving it, resembling an agent for moving a wife. Our position is that he is an agent for receiving a right, so he resembles an agent for receiving a debt. What they mentioned is invalidated by the appointment for receiving a debt; for he is an agent for receiving it and moving it to him.

Section: If he appoints him to sell something, he possesses the right to deliver it, because absolute appointment in a sale implies delivery, as it is among its completions, and he does not possess the right to grant a release from its price. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: He possesses it. Our position is that the release is not from the sale, nor from its completion, so the appointment in the sale is not an appointment for it, just like a release from something other than its price. As for receiving the price, the Qadi and Abu al-Khattab said: He does not possess it. This is one of the two views of the followers of al-Shafi'i, because one may appoint in a sale someone whom one does not trust with receiving the price. Thus, according to this, if receiving the price from the buyer becomes impossible, nothing is incumbent upon the agent. It is possible that he possesses the right to receive the price, because it is one of the requirements of the sale, so the agent possesses it, just like the delivery of the sold item. According to this, he has no right to deliver the sold item except by receiving the price or its presence. If he delivers it before receiving its price, he guarantees it. It is better to observe the situation: if the circumstantial evidence indicates the receipt of the price, such as appointing him to sell a garment in a market far from the principal, or in a place where the price would be lost by the agent's failure to receive it, it is permission for its receipt. Whenever he neglects to receive it, he is liable for it, because the apparent state of the principal is that he only ordered him to sell it to obtain its price, so he is not pleased with wasting it; therefore, he who does that is considered a waster and negligent. If the evidence does not indicate that, he does not have the right to receive it.

Section: If he appoints him to sell something, or to claim a pre-emption (shuf'a), or to divide something, there are two views. The first is that he possesses the right to establish it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa regarding division and claiming pre-emption, because he cannot reach what he was appointed for except by establishing it. The second is that he does not possess it. This is the opinion of some followers of al-Shafi'i.