The first is that they differ regarding the destruction of the property. The agent says: "Your property perished in my hand," or "The price which I received as the price for your goods perished in my hand." The principal calls him a liar. The word is that of the agent, along with his oath, because he is a trustee (amin), and this is among the things where it is difficult to produce evidence, so he is not burdened with that, just like the depositary (mudi'). The same applies to everyone who possesses something belonging to another by way of trust, such as the father, the executor (wasi), the judge's appointee (amin al-hakim), the depositary, the partner, the mudarib, the pledgee, the lessee, and the hired worker (ajir mushtarak). It is only this way because if he were burdened with that, while it is difficult for him, people would refrain from entering into trusts despite the need for them, and harm would befall them. Al-Qadi said: "Unless he claims the destruction was by an apparent event, such as a fire, plunder, or similar occurrences. In that case, he must produce evidence of the existence of this event in that area, and then his word is accepted regarding its destruction by that event." This is the view of Al-Shafi'i, because the existence of an apparent event is something that does not remain hidden, so it is not difficult to produce evidence for it.

The second scenario is that they differ regarding the agent's transgression (ta'addi) or his negligence in safeguarding, or his violation of the principal's order, such as if he claims against him: "You loaded the beast beyond its capacity," or "You loaded something of your own onto it," or "You were negligent in guarding it," or "You wore the garment," or "I ordered you to return the money and you did not do so," and similar things. The word is also that of the agent, along with his oath, because of what we mentioned regarding the one before it, and because he is a denier (munkir) of what is claimed against him, and the word is that of the denier. Whenever the destruction in his hand is established without his transgression—either by accepting his word, by the principal's admission, or by evidence—there is no liability upon him, whether the goods that he was ordered to sell were destroyed, or he sold them and received the price and the price was destroyed, and whether it was for a fee or without a fee; because he is the deputy of the owner in possession and disposal, so the destruction in his hand is like the destruction in the hand of the owner, and he is treated like the depositary, the mudarib, and their likes. If he transgressed or was negligent, he is liable. The same applies to all trustees. If the agent sold a commodity and received its price, then it was destroyed without transgression, and the sold item was claimed by another (mustahaqq), the purchaser returns to the principal for the price, not the agent; because the sold item belongs to him, so the recourse regarding the liability (uhdah) is against him, just as if he had sold it himself.