indicates his purpose regarding it, so his permission does not encompass other than it. If he says: "Purchase for me two slaves in a single transaction," and he purchases two slaves for two people who are partners between them, from their agent, or from one of them with the permission of the other, it is permissible. If each of them has an individual slave, and he purchases them from the two owners, such that they both make the sale of them incumbent upon him, and he accepts that from them in a single statement, Al-Qadi said: "It is not binding upon the principal." This is the school of Al-Shafi'i; because the contract of one person with two people is considered two contracts. It is possible that it is binding upon him; because the acceptance is the purchase, and it is singular, and the purpose does not differ. If he purchases them from their agent and specifies the price of each one of them, such as if he says: "I have sold you these two slaves, this one for one hundred and this one for two hundred," and he says: "I have accepted," this also admits two possibilities. If he does not specify the price of each one of them, the sale is not valid according to one of the two possibilities; because the price of each one of them is unknown. It is possible that it is valid, and the price is apportioned according to their respective values.

Section: If he hands him dirhams and says: "Purchase for me a slave with these," he has the right to purchase it with the specific ones or on credit (in the liability); because the purchase occurs in these two ways, so when he makes the agency absolute, he has the right to do whichever of them he wishes. If he says: "Purchase with these specific ones," and he purchases it on his own liability, then pays them, it is not binding upon the principal; because when the price is specified, the contract is rescinded by its destruction or by its being usurped, and no price remains binding upon his liability, and this is a concern for the principal, so it is not permissible to oppose him, and the purchase occurs for the agent. Does it remain pending upon the principal's authorization? There are two narrations. If he says: "Purchase for me on your liability, and pay these dirhams as the price," and he purchases it with the specific ones, our companions said: "It is binding upon the principal;" because he granted him permission for a contract by which the price is binding upon him, both with the existence of the dirhams and their destruction, so it was permission for a contract where the price is not binding upon him except with their existence. It is possible that it is not valid; because he may have a purpose in purchasing with other than the specific ones, because they might contain a doubt such that it is not obligatory to purchase with them, or the contract might be required to take place in a manner that is not rescinded by their destruction and is not voided by their being prohibited, and this is a valid purpose, so it is not permissible to let it pass for him, just as it was not permissible to let his purpose pass in the first case.