liability is incumbent upon him due to his negligence, not because his statement is rejected. Based on this, if the payment was made in the presence of the principal, the agent would not be liable for anything; because his omission of calling for witnesses and caution is an acquiescence by the principal to what his agent did. Likewise, if he permitted him to make payment without witnesses, there is no liability upon the agent; for his explicit word is given precedence over what the indication of the situation implies. Likewise, if he called for upright witnesses to the payment and they died or were absent, there is no liability upon him, due to the absence of his negligence. But if he called for witnesses whose testimony regarding the establishment of the right is disputed, such as a single witness, or a man and two women, does he absolve himself of liability? This is derived into two narrations. And if the agent and the principal differ, and he says: "I paid the debt in your presence." He says: "Rather, it was in my absence," or he says: "You gave me permission to pay it without evidence." So he denies the permission. Or he says: "I called for witnesses to the payment, but they died." So the principal denies that, then the statement is the statement of the principal; because the original status supports him.

Section: And if he appoints him to deposit his wealth, and he deposits it without calling for witnesses, our companions said: He is not liable if the depositor denies it. And the wording of al-Khiraqi in its generality implies that his statement against the orderer is not accepted. And this is one of the two views held by the followers of al-Shafi'i; because a deposit is not established except through evidence, so it is like a debt. Our companions said: The analogy to debt is not valid; because the word of the depositor is accepted regarding the return and the loss, so there is no benefit in taking extra precautions, unlike the case of debt. If the agent says: "I gave the money to the depositor." But he says: "You did not pay it." Then the statement is the statement of the agent; because they differed regarding his action, in what he was appointed for, so the statement is his statement regarding it.

Section: And when there is a debt against a man, or he has a deposit, and a person comes to him and claims that he is the agent of the owner of the debt and the deposit in order to collect them, and he establishes evidence for that, payment to him becomes mandatory. And if he does not establish evidence, he is not obligated to pay it to him, regardless of whether he confirms him that he is his agent or denies it. This is what al-Shafi'i said. He said: