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, also 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.

Section: If the agent purchases something for his principal with his permission, the ownership transfers from the seller to the principal and does not enter into the ownership of the agent. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: It enters into the ownership of the agent, then transfers to the principal, because the rights of the contract attach to the agent, based on the evidence that if he purchased it for more than its price, it would enter into his ownership and would not transfer to the principal. Our evidence is that he accepted a contract for someone else which was valid for him, so the ownership must transfer to him, like the father and the guardian, and like if he married on his behalf. Their saying that the rights of the contract attach to him is not accepted. Stemming from this is that if a Muslim authorizes a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state) to purchase wine or a pig, and he purchases it for him, the purchase is not valid. Abu Hanifa said: It is valid and occurs for the Dhimmi, because wine is wealth for them, as they deem it wealth and trade in it; thus, authorizing them in it is valid, like their other properties. Our evidence is that everything for which it is not permissible for a Muslim to enter into a contract, it is not permissible for him to appoint someone to do so, like marrying a Magian woman. By this, he has contradicted their other properties. When the agent sells for a specified price, the ownership of the price is established for the principal, because it is in the position of the sold item. If the price is a liability, then both the agent and the principal may demand it. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: The principal does not have the right to demand it, because the rights of the contract attach to the agent, not to him; therefore, the session of currency exchange (Sarf) and the choice (Khiyar) attach to him and not his principal, and thus possession (Qabd) is the same. Our evidence is that this is a debt owed to the principal, which he is permitted to collect, so he has the right