and the minor only takes it when he reaches maturity. This is not correct; because it is an option established to remove harm from wealth, so the guardian possesses it regarding the minor's rights, like the return due to a defect, and we have already mentioned the invalidity of his analogy previously. If the guardian leaves it even though there is a benefit, the minor has the right to take it upon reaching maturity, and the guardian is not liable for any debt for that; because he did not dissipate any of his wealth, he only refrained from acquiring what had a benefit for him, so it is similar to if he refrained from purchasing real estate for him even though there was a benefit in purchasing it. If, however, the benefit was in leaving it, such as if the buyer was deceived (in the price), or if taking it would require borrowing and mortgaging the minor's wealth, then he has no right to take it; because he does not possess the right to perform what has no benefit for the minor. If he does take it, is it valid? There are two narrations: One of them is that it is not valid, and it remains the property of the buyer; because he purchased for him what he did not have the right to purchase, so it is not valid, just as if he purchased at a price much higher than the equivalent, or purchased a defective item while knowing of its defect. The guardian does not possess the sold item because preemption is taken by the right of partnership, and the guardian has no partnership; therefore, if he wanted to take it for himself, it would not be valid, so it is like if he married off someone else without their permission, for it occurs as void, and it is not valid for either of them, and it is the same here. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. The second narration is that the acquisition for the minor is valid; because he purchased for him something through which harm is averted, so it is valid, just as if he purchased a defective item without knowing its defect. Benefit varies and is often hidden; there may be a benefit in taking it at a price higher than the equivalent due to the increase in the value of his property and the share he purchases by ending the partnership, or because the harm that is averted by taking it is significant. Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate the benefit by the object itself due to its hidden nature, nor by the high price because of what we mentioned, so the consideration of it lapses, and the sale is valid.

Section: If the guardian of orphans sells a share in the company of another of them to one of them, he has