if he claimed preemption against a person regarding a share he purchased, and the seller acknowledged the sale while the purchaser denied it, then the preemptor is entitled to the preemption according to the more correct of the two views. If the woman does not claim the validity of what the agent mentioned, then there is nothing binding upon him. It is possible that whoever absolved him of the guarantee also absolved him in this scenario, and whoever made it obligatory made it so in [the other scenario], so there would be no disagreement therein. And Allah knows best.

The sixth state is that they disagree regarding the nature of the agency, such as saying: "I appointed you to sell this slave." The agent says: "Nay, you appointed me to sell this slave girl." Or he says: "I appointed you to sell for two thousand." The agent says: "Nay, for one thousand." Or he says: "I appointed you to sell it for cash." The agent says: "Nay, on credit." Or he says: "I appointed you to buy a slave." The agent says: "Nay, a slave girl." Or he says: "I appointed you to buy for five." The agent says: "Nay, for ten." Al-Qadi said: "The word is that of the principal." This is the school of al-Shafi'i, the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y), and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu al-Khattab said: "If he says: 'I permitted you to sell for cash, and to buy for five,' and he says: 'Nay, you permitted me to sell on credit and to buy for ten,' then the word is that of the agent." Ahmad stated this in [the chapter of] al-mudarabah, because he is a trustee in the transaction, so his word is accepted regarding its nature, like the tailor if he says: "You permitted me to cut it into a qaba' (long robe)." And he says: "Nay, a qamis (shirt)." It was narrated from Malik that if the merchandise is found, the word is that of the principal, and if it is lost/no longer available, the word is that of the agent; because if it is lost, the guarantee becomes binding upon the agent, and the origin is its absence, contrary to when it is present. The first opinion is more correct for two reasons: First, they have disagreed on the agency which the agent claims, and the origin is its absence, so the word is that of the one who denies it, just as if the principal had not acknowledged his agency in anything else. Second, they have disagreed on the nature of the principal’s statement, so the word is that of the principal regarding the nature of his own speech, just as if the spouses disagreed on the nature of the divorce. Based on this, if he says: "I bought this slave girl for you with your permission."