Abu Hanifa said: If he confirms him, the fulfillment of the debt becomes mandatory upon him. Regarding delivering the tangible property to him, there are two narrations; the most well-known of which is that its delivery is not mandatory. He argued that he has acknowledged his right to receive it, so its fulfillment is mandatory for him, just as if he had acknowledged that he is his heir. Our argument is that it is a delivery that does not absolve him, so it is not mandatory, just as if the right were a tangible property, and as if he had acknowledged that this person is the guardian of the minor. It differs from the acknowledgement of him being his heir, because that includes his absolution, for he has acknowledged that no one else has a right. As for if he denies his agency, he is not made to take an oath. Abu Hanifa said: He is made to take an oath. The basis of the disagreement is based on the disagreement regarding the obligation of payment upon confirmation. So whoever makes payment mandatory upon confirmation makes the oath mandatory upon denial, as with all other rights. And whoever does not make payment mandatory upon confirmation says: The oath is not mandatory upon denial, due to its lack of benefit. If he pays it to him with or without confirmation, and the principal appears and confirms the agent, the payer is absolved. If he denies him, the statement is his statement with his oath. So when he takes the oath, and the right is a tangible property present in the hand of the agent, he has the right to take it, and he has the right to demand its return from whomever he wishes; because the payer paid it to someone not entitled to it, and the agent has his exact property in his hand. If he demands it from the payer, the payer has the right to demand it from the agent and take it from his hand, in order to deliver it to its owner. If the property is lost or its return is impossible, its owner has the right to claim its substitute from whomever he wishes among them; because the payer guaranteed it by payment, and the one to whom it was paid received what he was not entitled to receive. Whichever of them provides the guarantee does not have the right to claim it back from the other; because each one of them claims that what the owner took is an injustice, and admits that no transgression was found from his counterpart, so he does not claim it back from his counterpart due to the injustice of another, unless the payer paid it to the agent without confirming his claim of agency. If he provides the guarantee, he returns to the agent, because he did not acknowledge his agency, nor was it established by evidence. If the agent provides the guarantee, he does not return to him. And if he confirms him, but the agent committed transgression or was negligent regarding it, the liability is established upon him. If he provides the guarantee, he does not return to anyone, and if the payer provides the guarantee, he returns to him; because although he acknowledges that he received it in a valid reception, the liability became mandatory upon him due to his negligence and transgression, so the payer says: The owner wronged me by seeking recourse