If an agent is appointed to collect a right and the debtor denies the existence of that right, does the agent become authorized to establish the right against the debtor?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Agency
Primary text
If an agent is appointed to take possession of a right and the debtor denies it, the agent becomes an agent for establishing that right against the debtor, according to one legal view. This is supported by Abu Hanifa. The reasoning is that possession cannot be attained except through establishment; therefore, establishment is implicitly authorized by custom, and since possession requires establishment, the agent is granted the authority for establishment, analogous to an agent authorized to purchase a thing gaining the authority to weigh its price, or an agent authorized to sell gaining the authority to deliver it.
Supporting text
Another view holds that the agent does not have this authority, which is one view among the companions of Al-Shafi'i. This position maintains that collection and establishment are two different matters, so authorization for one does not imply authorization for the other, similar to how authorization for litigation does not imply authorization for possession. It is further noted that if the principal knew of the debtor's denial or default, it is considered authorization for establishment and litigation; if the principal was unaware, it is not considered authorization for establishment. This ruling applies equally whether the right is a tangible asset or a debt. Some companions of Abu Hanifa state that if an agent is authorized to take possession of a tangible asset, he does not have the authority to establish it, viewing the agent as authorized only for transfer, similar to an agent authorized to transfer a wife.