of some people, it belongs to them, not him.' This indicates that they owned it by it falling into their house. We say: 'This is interpreted as meaning that it fell while still able to flee, so the people of the house hunted it and thus owned it through their hunting.' Ibn Aqil said the same. It is necessary to interpret it this way because if they do not own what enters their house through the act of God Almighty, then that which enters through the act of a human is even more so the case. Furthermore, it fell into the house after the blow that rendered it incapable, by which game is owned, so it resembles the case where the wind blows a person's garment and drops it into their house. If the hunting tool, such as a net, a snare, or blades, is not set up for hunting and hunting is not intended by it, and game becomes caught in it, its owner does not own it by that, because it is not prepared for hunting in this state, so it resembles land that is not prepared for it.

Section: Whatever game is caught by a person’s dog, falcon, or leopard, having been released at its owner’s command, belongs to him, because it is more certain than a net, as it is an animal that achieves this through its action, intent, and its owner’s release, so it is like his arrow. Moreover, God Almighty said: "Eat of what they catch for you." If it is released on its own, its ruling is the same as the ruling on game that ends up in a person's land, in that he does not own it, and others have no right to take it; yet if someone else takes it, he owns it, like forage. The same applies to grass that grows in a pasture within a person’s livestock enclosure.

758 - Issue: He said: "The agent is a guarantor if he violates instructions, unless the principal agrees, in which case it is binding upon him."

In summary, if the agent violates his principal's instructions by purchasing something other than what he was ordered to buy, selling what he was not authorized to sell, or purchasing something other than what was specified for him, he bears the liability for what he caused the owner to lose or what was destroyed, because he has stepped outside the bounds of trust and become like a usurper. As for his statement, "unless the principal agrees, in which case it is binding upon him," he means that if he buys something other than what he was ordered to buy using a price that is a debt upon his own conscience, the purchase is valid but remains pending on the principal's approval. If he approves it, it becomes binding upon him, and he is liable for the price.