Section: When the agent takes possession of the price of the sold item, it is a trust in his hands. He is not obligated to deliver it before it is requested, nor does he become liable for it by delaying it, because he (the principal) was satisfied with it being in his possession and has not retracted that. If he requests it and he delays returning it despite his ability to do so, and it perishes, he is liable for it. If he promised him to return it, then later claimed that he had returned it before he requested it, or that it had perished, his statement is not accepted; because he has contradicted himself by his promise to return it. If the principal confirms him, he is absolved, and if he denies him, the word is the principal’s. If the agent produces evidence for that, is it accepted? There are two views: One of them is that it is accepted, because if the principal had confirmed him, he would be absolved, so likewise if evidence is established for him. Also, because evidence is one of the two proofs, so he is absolved by it just as he is by acknowledgment. The second is: It is not accepted, because he has contradicted it by his promise to deliver it. As for when he confirms him, he has acknowledged his release, so no disputant remains for him. If he did not promise him to return it, but he withheld it or delayed returning it despite his ability, and then claimed it perished or was returned, his statement is not accepted; because he is liable by withholding it, and is outside the status of a trust. If he produces evidence for what he claimed of return or destruction, it is heard; because he did not contradict it.

Section: Ahmad said, in the narration of Abu al-Harith, regarding a man who is owed dirhams by another, so he sent a messenger to him to collect them. He (the debtor) sent a dinar to him with the messenger, but it was lost with the messenger. It is from the wealth of the sender; because he did not order him to exchange it (masarafa). It was only at the risk of the sender because he paid to the messenger something other than what the sender had ordered him to do, for the sender only ordered him to collect his money that was in his (the debtor's) dhimma, which are the dirhams, and he did not pay them; rather, he paid a dinar as a substitute for the dirhams, and this is an exchange (sarf) which requires the consent of the creditor and his permission, and he did not give permission. Thus, the messenger became an agent for the sender in paying it to the creditor and exchanging it for it; so when it perished in the hands of his agent, it was at his risk, unless the messenger informs the debtor that the owner of the debt gave him permission to receive the dinar in place of the dirhams. In that case, it would then be at the risk