What is the ruling concerning breaking an oath when the oath-taker was unaware of the specific matter sworn upon?

Primary text

The oath is considered broken, and the person is treated as if they forgot, when an action contrary to the oath occurs without the oath-taker having knowledge of the specific condition or object of the oath. This applies when a man swears not to speak to a specific person, but greets him believing him to be a stranger. Similarly, if someone swears not to leave his adversary until he fully reclaims his right, but then leaves after the adversary gives him what he believes to be his full right, only to later discover that what he received was defective. Another example is when one swears, 'I will not sell a garment to Zayd,' and Zayd then delegates someone to deliver the garment to a seller, and the seller hands it over to the original oath-taker, who then sells it without the oath-taker's knowledge. In all these cases, the ruling is that of forgetfulness because the intent was not to violate the oath.