because it is possible for one of them to occur without the other, so permission in one does not entail permission in the other.

Section: If he appoints him to purchase something, he possesses the right to deliver its price, because it is among its completions and rights, so it is like the delivery of the sold item in a sale. The ruling on receiving the sold item is like the ruling on receiving the price in the sold item, according to what has preceded of discussion regarding it. If he buys a slave and pays his price, and the slave is then claimed by another (mustahaqqan), does he possess the right to litigate with the seller regarding the price? There are two views. If he buys something, receives it, and delays the delivery of the price without an excuse, and it perishes in his hand, he is liable for it. If he had an excuse, such as if he went to pay it and it perished, or similar to that, then there is no liability upon him. Ahmad stipulated this; because he was negligent in holding onto it in the first case and not the second, and for that reason, liability was incumbent upon him, unlike when he was not negligent.

Section: If he appoints him to receive a debt from a man, and he dies, you look at his wording. If he says: "Receive my right from so-and-so," he does not have the right to receive it from his heir, because he was not commanded to do that. If he says: "Receive my right that is upon so-and-so," or "against so-and-so," then he has the right to demand it from his heir and receive it; because his receipt from the heir is a receipt of the right that was upon his decedent. If it is said: "If he had said, 'Receive my right from Zayd,' and Zayd appointed a person to pay it to him, he would have the right to receive it from him, and the heir is the deputy of the decedent, so he is like his agent." We say: The agent, when he pays on his behalf by his permission, takes the place of his delivery; because he placed him in his own stead, and it is not like that here, for the right has transferred to the heirs and the demand has become incumbent upon them, not by way of substitution for the decedent. For this reason, if he swore not to do something, he would break his oath by the action of his agent, but he would not break his oath by the action of his heir.

842- Issue: He said: (And if the agent sells, then claims the price has perished without transgression, there is no liability upon him. If he is suspected, he swears.)

When the agent and the principal differ, there are six scenarios: