The ruling on an agent giving preference to the principal if he buys from him while intending to buy from someone else
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : If the sole agent is given preference himself. If.
The Shaykh : Given preference, yes.
The questioner : He knew the shop owner, so he gave him preference, but then someone else wanted to take it. So do we say this is giving preference to a specific person?
The Shaykh : This is a good question. That is, if the seller sold to the agent for less than the market price, giving him preference because he is his companion, and if he knew that the goods were for the other person who appointed him as agent, he would not have given him preference. So do we say in this case that the agent should take the difference between the market price and the price at which the contract was concluded? This is a matter for consideration. That is, one might say he should take the difference between the two values. For example, he buys it from the seller who gave him preference for eight, while the market price is ten, and he tells the principal, "What is the price? Ten, my brothers, but Jaber is always far from it."
Or do we say that since he appointed him and the agent bought it for his principal, actions are judged by intentions, and the reduction in price due to favoring this person comes out of the principal's share? There is no doubt that this is the safest for the conscience and the most scrupulous. But if he also wants to be frank, let him say to the seller, "So-and-so, I did not buy it for myself; I bought it for so-and-so." This is in the seller's interest so that nothing of the blood [sin] falls upon him, and it clears the conscience. And he tells the principal, "I bought it for ten."
The Shaykh : Given preference, yes.
The questioner : He knew the shop owner, so he gave him preference, but then someone else wanted to take it. So do we say this is giving preference to a specific person?
The Shaykh : This is a good question. That is, if the seller sold to the agent for less than the market price, giving him preference because he is his companion, and if he knew that the goods were for the other person who appointed him as agent, he would not have given him preference. So do we say in this case that the agent should take the difference between the market price and the price at which the contract was concluded? This is a matter for consideration. That is, one might say he should take the difference between the two values. For example, he buys it from the seller who gave him preference for eight, while the market price is ten, and he tells the principal, "What is the price? Ten, my brothers, but Jaber is always far from it."
Or do we say that since he appointed him and the agent bought it for his principal, actions are judged by intentions, and the reduction in price due to favoring this person comes out of the principal's share? There is no doubt that this is the safest for the conscience and the most scrupulous. But if he also wants to be frank, let him say to the seller, "So-and-so, I did not buy it for myself; I bought it for so-and-so." This is in the seller's interest so that nothing of the blood [sin] falls upon him, and it clears the conscience. And he tells the principal, "I bought it for ten."
Source
قناة «فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين»، [4812] حكم مراعاة الموكل لوكيله إن اشترى منه وهو يريد شخصًا آخر - تعليقات على الكافي لابن عثيمين — youtube.com
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.