Does the principal have recourse against the agent if the agent paid the debt during the principal's absence without proof, even if the agent claims payment?

Primary text

There are differing opinions. According to one narration, the principal has recourse against the agent because the agent failed to perform an act that would discharge the debt—namely, obtaining proof—which is implied by the general instruction to pay the debt, similar to the recognized customary requirement for sales. The failure to secure evidence is considered negligence (tafrit), making the agent liable. Alternatively, another narration holds that the agent is not liable unless they were specifically instructed to bring witnesses and failed to do so. If the principal confirms the payment occurred, the agent is not liable. If the principal denies the payment, the agent's sworn statement is accepted based on the claim of performing the entrusted act.