He only swears to the denial of his knowledge, and in this, he is not acting as a representative for anyone. If the agent returns it and the principal arrives and says, 'The defect reached me, and I was satisfied with it,' and the seller confirms him, or evidence is established for it, the return does not take effect as intended, and the principal has the right to reclaim it, and the seller has the right to return it to him; because his satisfaction with it dismissed the agent from the right of return, based on the evidence that if he [the principal] had known of it, he would not have had the right of return, unless we say that the agent is not dismissed until he knows of the dismissal. If the agent accepts the defect or holds onto it in a manner that terminates the right of return, and the principal arrives and wishes to return it, he may do so if the seller confirms to him that the purchase was on his behalf, or if evidence is established for it. If he [the seller] denies him and there is no evidence, and the seller swears that he does not know the purchase was on his behalf, then he [the principal] does not have the right to return it; because the apparent situation is that whoever buys something, it is his, and it is binding upon the agent, and he is liable for the price. All of this is the school of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: The agent may purchase a defective item, because authorization in a sale without qualification includes the defective item in its generality, and because he is his trustee in the purchase, so it is permissible for him to purchase a defective item, like the Mudarib. Our evidence is that a sale, without qualification, implies a sound item, not a defective one; therefore, agency in it is the same. It differs from Mudaraba in that the objective there is profit, and profit is obtained from a defective item just as it is from a sound one, whereas the objective of agency is the purchase of what one intends to own or use to fulfill one's need, and a defect may be an impediment to fulfilling that need or to owning it, so the objective is not attained. Abu Hanifa has contradicted his own principle, for he said regarding the words of the Exalted: '...then free a neck' (Surah al-Mujadilah: 3): Neither a blind nor a defective one (with a defect that hinders work) is permissible. Yet he said here: It is permissible for the agent to purchase a blind, invalid, or hand-and-leg-amputated person.

Section: If he commands him to purchase a specific item and he purchases it, then finds it defective, it is possible that he has the right of return; because the command implies soundness, so it is similar to if he had appointed him to purchase an item described. It is also possible that he does not have the right of return, because the principal restricted his discretion by specifying the item, so perhaps he was satisfied with it in all its attributes. If he knew of its defect before purchasing it, may he purchase it? There are two possibilities, based on the issue of returning it if he knew of the defect after purchasing it. If we say: He has the right to return it, then he may not purchase it; because if a defect permits return after the contract, then it is more appropriate that it prevents the purchase. If we say: He does not have the right of return there, then he may purchase it here; because the principal's specification restricted his discretion and judgment regarding the permissibility of return, and thus it is the same for the purchase.