Urwa ibn al-Ja'd, that he sold what he was not permitted to sell, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) approved it for him and prayed for him. Also, because he acted for his benefit, so it was valid and suspended upon approval, like a bequest in excess of one-third. The reasoning for the first transmission is that he contracted over the wealth of one who did not authorize him to contract, so it was not valid, just as if he had sold the property of an adolescent child, then he reached puberty and approved it. Furthermore, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Hakim ibn Hizam: "Do not sell what you do not possess," meaning what you do not own. As for the hadith of Urwa, it is possible that he was an absolute agent, evidenced by the fact that he sold, handed over the item sold, and took its price, and that is not permissible for one who is not permitted to do so by consensus. Whenever we rule that the sale is void, and the person who contracted with him acknowledges the voidness of the sale, or it is proven by evidence, he must return what he took. If he does not acknowledge it, and no evidence is established for it, the contracting party takes an oath, and he is not obligated to return anything, because the fundamental principle is that a person's disposition is for himself, so he is not believed against another regarding what voids his contract. If the seller claims that he sold the property of another without his permission, the statement is the statement of the buyer, for what we have mentioned. If the buyer said: "You sold the property of another without his permission," and the seller denied that and said: "Rather, I sold my own property," or said: "I sold the property of my principal with his permission," his statement is also accepted. If both the seller and the buyer agree upon something that voids the sale, and the principal says: "Rather, the sale is valid," the statement is the statement of the principal along with his oath, and he is not obligated to return what he took as compensation.

Section: If he appointed him to marry a woman for him, and he married someone else for him, or married for him without his permission, the contract is void in all cases, according to one of the two transmissions. This is the position of al-Shafi'i, because a condition for the validity of the marriage is specifying the husband. When it is without his permission, it does not count for him nor for the agent, because the intention is the specific individuals of the spouses, unlike a sale, for it is permissible to purchase for him without naming the one for whom the purchase is made, so they differ. The second transmission is that the marriage is valid and is suspended upon the permission of the one for whom the marriage was contracted; if he approves it