What is the ruling when the principal and agent disagree on the specific nature or condition of the agency authorization?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Agency
Primary text
If the agent claims authorization for one specific act or condition (e.g., selling a slave boy, selling for 2000, cash sale) and the principal claims authorization for a different act or condition (e.g., selling a slave girl, selling for 1000, deferred sale), the principal's statement is accepted. This is because the dispute concerns the specification of the authorization which the agent claims originated from the principal, and the default is the absence of that specific authorization, placing the burden of proof on the agent, similar to disputes between spouses over the specification of divorce.
Supporting text
Abu Al-Khattab holds that if the principal said, 'I permit you to sell for cash,' and the agent says, 'You permitted me to sell on deferred payment,' the agent's statement prevails, citing a ruling on *mudharabah* (profit-sharing partnership), because the agent is a trustee regarding the action and their statement on its specification should be accepted. Malik holds that if the commodity still exists, the principal's word is taken; if it is lost, the agent's word is taken because loss would impose liability on the agent, which contradicts the default absence of liability.