thereby indicates that he intended to withdraw from its sale. And if he sells it with a corrupt sale, the agency is not voided, because his ownership of the slave has not ceased. Ibn al-Mundhir mentioned this.

848 - Issue: He said: (And whoever is appointed to purchase something, but buys something else, the principal has the choice to accept the purchase; if he does not accept it, it becomes binding upon the agent, unless he purchased it with the specific funds, in which case the purchase is void.)

The sum of this is that if the agent in a purchase contradicts his principal and buys something other than what he was appointed to purchase—for example, if he appoints him to buy a slave, but he buys a slave girl—it must either be that he purchased it on his own liability or with the specific funds. If he purchased it on his own liability and then paid the price, the purchase is valid, because he only purchased it with a price on his own liability, which is not the property of another. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: It is not valid according to one of two possibilities, because he contracted it on the basis that it is for the principal, and he did not grant permission for that, so it is not valid, just as if he had purchased it with his specific funds. Our view is that he did not dispose of another's property, so it is valid, just as if he had not intended it for another. Once this is established, there are two transmissions from Ahmad: the first is that the purchase is binding upon the buyer. This is the second position of the companions of al-Shafi'i, because he purchased on his own liability without the permission of another, so the purchase belongs to him, just as if he had not intended it for another. The second transmission is that it is suspended upon the permission of the principal; if he approves it, it becomes binding upon him, because he purchased it for him and he has approved it, so it becomes binding, just as if he had purchased it with his permission. And if he does not approve it, it becomes binding upon the agent, because it cannot be binding upon the principal as he did not authorize its purchase, and it becomes binding upon the agent because the purchase originated from him and did not become established for another, so it becomes established in his right, just as if he had purchased it for himself. Such is the ruling regarding everyone who purchases something on their own liability for another without their permission, whether he was an agent for the one he intended to purchase for, or he was not an agent for him. As for if he purchases with the specific funds, such as if he says: "Sell me the slave girl for these dinars," or sells the property of another without his permission, then the correct view in the madhhab is that the sale is void. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. There is another transmission in it that it is valid and suspended upon the permission of the owner; if he does not approve it, it is void, and if he approves it, it is valid, due to the hadith