as in the sale of the two sheep. The second view is that if the remainder is worth a dinar, it is permissible, due to the hadith of Urwah [ibn al-Ja'd] al-Bariqi, and because he secured the objective for him; and the surplus, if it were something other than the sheep, would have been permissible, so it is permissible for him to exchange it for something else. The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is the validity of the sale, because he adopted the hadith of Urwah and followed it. If we say: It is not permissible for him to sell the sheep, and he sells it, does the sale occur void or valid but suspended upon the permission of the principal? There are two narrations regarding this. This is a principle for everyone who disposes of another's property without his permission, and an agent who violates his principal's instruction: Does it occur void, or is it valid but suspended upon the owner's permission? There are two narrations concerning this. For al-Shafi'i, there are two views regarding the validity of the sale here.

Section: If he is appointed as an agent to purchase a specific item that is described, it is not permissible for him to purchase it except as sound/unblemished, because an absolute sale implies soundness, and for this reason, return for defect is permitted. If he purchases a defective item while knowing of its defect, it is not binding upon the principal, because he purchased other than what he was authorized to purchase. If he did not know of its defect, the sale is valid, because he is only obligated to purchase a sound item in appearance, due to his inability to guard against purchasing a defective item whose defect he does not know. If he later learns of its defect, he has the right to return it, because he stands in the place of the principal in the purchase. The principal also has the right to return it, because the ownership belongs to him. If the principal is present before the agent returns it and is satisfied with the defect, the agent does not have the right to return it, because the right belongs to the principal, unlike the Mudarib (manager of profit-sharing), for he has the right of return even if the capital owner is satisfied, because he has a right [in the profit] which does not lapse by the satisfaction of another. If the principal is not present and the agent wants to return it, and the seller says to him: "Wait until the principal arrives, for perhaps he will be satisfied with the defect," the agent is not obligated to do so, because he is not secure against the loss of the right of return due to the seller fleeing, nor the loss of the price due to its destruction. If he delays it based on this view, and the principal is not satisfied with it, his right of return does not lapse, even if we say: The return must be immediate, because he delayed it with the seller's permission. If the seller says: "Your principal has learned of the defect and was satisfied with it," his statement is not accepted except with evidence. If he has no evidence, the agent is not made to swear an oath, unless the seller claims that the agent knows of it, in which case he swears an oath denying knowledge. Al-Shafi'i held this view. From Abu Hanifa, it is reported that he is not made to swear an oath, because if he were to swear, he would be a representative in the oath, and this is not correct, for there is no representation here.