The third scenario is that they differ regarding the transaction. The agent says: "I sold the garment and received the price, and it has perished." The principal says: "You did not sell, nor did you receive anything." Or he says: "You sold, but you did not receive anything." The word is that of the agent. This was mentioned by Ibn Hamid, and it is the view of the Hanafis (Ashab al-Ra'y); because he possesses the authority to sell and receive payment, so his word is accepted regarding both, just as the word of the guardian of a woman forced into marriage (mujbarah) is accepted regarding her marriage. It is also possible that his word is not accepted, which is one of the two views of the Shafi'is; because he is acknowledging a right of someone else against his principal, so it is not accepted, just as if he were to acknowledge a debt against him. If he appointed him to purchase a slave, and he bought it, then they differed regarding the amount for which he bought it—the agent says: "I bought it for one thousand," and the principal says: "Rather, you bought it for five hundred"—the word is that of the agent, for the reason we mentioned. Al-Qadi said: "The word is that of the principal, unless he had specified the purchase for him at the amount he claimed, such as saying: 'Buy me a slave for one thousand,' and the agent claimed that he bought it for that amount. Then the word is that of the agent; otherwise, the word is that of the principal, because whoever's word is accepted regarding the substance of a matter, his word is accepted regarding its attributes." Al-Shafi'i has two views similar to these two positions. Abu Hanifah said: "If the purchase was on credit (in the dhimmah), the word is that of the principal; because he is the debtor who is called upon to pay the price. If he purchased it with specific money (bi-ayn al-mal), the word is that of the agent; because he is the debtor, for he is called upon to return what is in excess of five hundred." Our position is that they differed regarding the agent's transaction, so the word is his, just as if they had differed regarding the sale, and because he is a trustee in the purchase, so his word is that of his own regarding the amount of the price of the purchased item, like the mudarib, and just as if he had said to him: "Buy for one thousand" before the judge.

The fourth scenario is that they differ regarding the return of the item. The agent claims it, and the principal denies it. If it was without a fee, the word is that of the agent; because he received the property for the benefit of its owner, so the word is his, like the depositary. If it was for a fee, there are two views; one of them is that his word is accepted, because he is an agent,