the first. The school of Al-Shafi'i regarding all of this is similar to what we have mentioned.

Section: If he specifies for him the purchase with ready cash (naqd) or for immediate payment (halan), it is not permissible for him to contradict him. If he grants him permission for deferred payment (nasi'ah) and sale with any currency he wishes, it is permissible. If he makes it absolute, he should not sell except for immediate payment in the currency of the city; because the default in sale is immediacy, and absolute mention of currency refers to the currency of the city. Therefore, if he sells his slave for ten dirhams and makes it absolute, it is construed as being for immediate payment in the currency of the city. If there are two currencies in the city, he sells for the more common of the two; if they are equal, he sells for whichever of the two he wishes. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa and his two companions said: He has the right to sell with deferred payment, because it is customary, so it is analogous to immediate payment. A similar view is derived for us based on the narration regarding the Mudarib (capital investor), which we have already mentioned. The first is more appropriate, because if the sale is absolute, it is construed as immediate, so likewise is the agency when it is absolute regarding it. We do not concede that the custom is equal in both; for the sale for immediate payment is more frequent. It differs from the Mudarabah for two reasons: First, the intended purpose of the Mudarabah is profit, not the immediate meeting of a need with the price, whereas the intended purpose in agency might be to meet an urgent need that would be missed by delaying the price. Second, the responsibility for collecting the price in Mudarabah lies with the Mudarib (manager), so the harm of delay in litigation returns to him, whereas here it is the opposite, so the principal would not be satisfied with it. Also, because the harm in the loss of the price falls upon the Mudarib, because it is calculated from the profit, since profit acts as a protection for the capital, while here it returns upon the principal, so the analogy is severed.

Section: If he appoints him as an agent to sell a commodity with deferred payment, and he sells it for immediate payment for less than its price with deferred payment, or for less than what he had specified for him, the sale is not effective; because he has contradicted his principal, as he was satisfied with the price of deferred payment rather than immediate payment. If he sells it for immediate payment for what it is worth with deferred payment, or he had specified its price for him and he sells it for that price for immediate payment, Al-Qadi said: "It is valid;" because he has increased him in benefit, so it is considered permitted by custom, similar to if he had appointed him to sell it for ten and he sold it for more than that. It is possible that it should be examined, so if he has no purpose in the deferment, it is valid; but if he has a purpose in it...