Section: If he hires him to carry two qafiz (measures), and he carries them, but finds they are three, then if the lessee handled the measuring and the lessor did not know of that, his ruling is the ruling of one who hires for the load of a thing and adds to it. If the lessor handled its measuring and packing, and the lessee did not know of that, then he is a usurper, and he has no wage for carrying the excess. If his animal perishes, there is no liability for it because it perished due to the hostility of its owner, and his ruling regarding the liability for the food is the ruling of one who usurps another's food. If an outsider handled that, and the lessor and lessee did not know, then he is a transgressor against both of them; he owes the owner of the animal the wage, liability for it attaches to him, and he owes the owner of the food the liability for his food. It is the same whether one of them measured it and the other placed it on the back of the animal, or the one who measured and packed it also placed it on its back. The companions of al-Shafi'i said, in one of two perspectives: If the lessee measured it and the lessor placed it on the back of the animal, there is no liability upon the lessee because the lessor was negligent in loading it. As for us, the deception is from the lessee, for he informed him of its measure contrary to what it is, so liability was incumbent upon him, just as if he had ordered an outsider to load it. As for if the lessee measured it, and the lessor lifted it onto the animal knowing its measure, the lessee is not liable for his animal if it perishes because he did that without deception or fraud. Is he entitled to the wage for the extra qafiz? There are two potential perspectives: one of them is that he has no wage, because the lessee did not grant him a wage for that. The second is that he is entitled to the wage of the excess, because they agreed upon carrying it by way of lease, so it is treated like the mutual exchange (mu'atah) in sales and entering the bathhouse without stipulating a wage. If the lessor measured it, and the lessee carried it on the animal knowing that without him ordering him to carry it on it, then he owes the wage for the extra qafiz. If he ordered him to carry it on it, there are two perspectives regarding the obligation of the wage, just as if the lessor had carried it on it, because when he ordered it, that was like his own action.