the capacity to act. If he is an agent for an agent who manages his own wealth, he is dismissed by his own immorality, because an agent does not have the right to appoint an immoral person as an agent; he is not dismissed, however, by the immorality of his principal, because his principal is [himself] an agent for the owner of the wealth, and immorality does not contradict that. Agency is not voided by sleep, intoxication, or fainting, because these do not remove one from the capacity to act, nor is guardianship established over him thereby, unless immorality results from the intoxication, in which case it is subject to the details we have previously mentioned.

Section: Agency is not voided by transgression (ta'addi) in the matter for which one was appointed, such as wearing the garment or riding the mount. This is one of two opinions among the followers of al-Shafi'i. The second opinion is that the agency is voided, because it is a contract of trust (amana), so it is voided by transgression just like a deposit (wadi'a). Our view is that when he acts, he has acted with the permission of his principal, so it is valid, just as if he had not transgressed. It differs from a deposit in that a deposit is a pure trust, so it is contradicted by transgression and treachery, whereas agency is permission to act that includes trust; thus, if the trust is removed by transgression, the permission remains as it is. According to this, if he appoints him to sell a garment and he wears it, he becomes liable. If he then sells it, the sale is valid, and he is absolved of his liability due to its entry into the buyer's ownership and liability. When he receives the price, it is a trust in his hand and he is not liable for it, because he received it with the permission of the principal and did not transgress in it. If he gives him money and appoints him to buy something, and he transgresses regarding the price, he becomes liable for it; if he then buys with it and delivers it, the liability ceases, and his possession of the purchased item is a possession of trust. If a defect is found in the purchased item and it is returned to him, or if he himself finds a defect in what he bought and returns it and receives the price, he is liable for it, because the contract that removed the liability has ceased, so what was removed by it returns.

Section: If he appoints his wife as an agent for a sale, purchase, or other matter, and then divorces her, the agency is not annulled, because the cessation of marriage does not prevent the inception of agency, so it does not cut off its continuity. If he appoints his slave and then manumits him or sells him, he is not dismissed for the same reason. It is possible that he is dismissed, because appointing his slave is not truly an agency; rather, it is utilizing him by right of ownership, so it is voided by the cessation of ownership.