Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he bought for him in his debt without his permission and did not name him in the contract, it is valid for him by approval, and it becomes the property of the buyer by its absence."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if he bought for him" This is the beginning of today's lesson. "And if he bought for him in his debt without his permission and did not name him in the contract, it is valid for him by approval, and it becomes the property of the buyer by its absence" If he bought for him, meaning for another person, in his debt, meaning not with the specific money of his own, without his permission, and did not name him in the contract, it is valid for him, valid for the other person by approval. And it becomes the property of the buyer by its absence, meaning by the absence of approval. The property of whom? The buyer. Is that clear?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Okay. He bought for him in his debt without his permission. I mean, I know the scenario of the issue. I know that so-and-so wants to buy a watch, so I stood by the watch seller and bought a watch for so-and-so in my debt. He did not appoint me as his agent, nor did he give me permission, and I did not say, "I bought this for so-and-so." I bought it and did not say it was for so-and-so. Then I said to the man for whom I bought it, "I bought a watch for you." If he approves, the ownership belongs to him. If he does not approve, the ownership belongs to me. Okay, did you understand the scenario?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Another example. I know that so-and-so wants to buy a sheep for milk, meaning he wants to buy a sheep to milk it. Did you understand? So I bought him a sheep from a sheep seller, and I did not say it was for so-and-so; I did not name him in the contract. Then I said to my friend for whom I bought it, "I bought you the sheep." He said, "I accept that." So it belongs to him? To whom?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To the one for whom it was bought. It is valid for the one for whom it was bought. And the milk that is produced after the contract belongs to whom? To the one for whom it was bought, because it is the increase of his property. If he says, "I do not want it; I bought a sheep and I do not want it," then it belongs to whom? To the buyer. It is binding upon him. For this reason, they said, "And it becomes the property of the buyer by its absence," meaning by the absence of approval. It is the property of him, meaning the buyer. And from when does he own it? From the return of the purchased item to him, or from the contract?
The questioner : From the contract.
The Shaykh : From the contract. And on this basis, the milk belongs to whom? To the buyer, or to the one for whom it was bought? To the buyer. Okay, did you understand the scenario in which the unauthorized transaction is valid? It is not valid according to the school of thought except in this scenario: when he buys for a person in his debt, does not name him in the contract, and the one for whom it was bought agrees. Then the contract is valid. Why? They said that because he bought in his debt and did not name him in the contract, the contract becomes binding for the buyer with respect to the seller, whether he gives it to the one for whom he bought it or not. Okay. If he bought for him with the specific money of his own, not in his debt—if he bought for him with the specific money of his own, the sale is not valid if he says to the sheep seller, "Give me a sheep with these dirhams," and intends it for so-and-so. The contract is not valid because he bought for him with the specific money of his own, not in his debt. Likewise, if he named him and said to the sheep owner, "I bought this sheep from you for one hundred for so-and-so," then he led the sheep and delivered it to so-and-so, and so-and-so said, "There is no harm, I accept." Is the sale valid?
The questioner : No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid because he named him in the contract. If he names him in the contract, his purchase for him is by agency, is it not? And did he appoint him as an agent? He did not appoint him. For this reason, they said that if he names him in the contract, the sale is not valid, because if he names him in the contract, he has placed himself in the position of an agent, whereas in reality, he was not appointed as an agent.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he did not name him, that is what they said makes it valid. Okay—pay attention—so the implication of his statement "in his debt" is that if he bought for him with the specific money, it is not valid. The implication of "did not name him in the contract" is that if he named him, it is not valid, even if he approves. Because these conditions are after he approves; if he does not approve, it is not valid. The second opinion in the issue is that it is valid, as we mentioned in the previous lesson, that the unauthorized transaction, if the one for whom it was transacted approves it, is valid. And we mentioned the evidence and the reasoning. If he does not approve? It is binding upon whom?
The questioner : ... the buyer.
The Shaykh : It is binding upon the buyer. So the buyer does not have the right to return it to the seller and say, "I bought it for so-and-so, but he did not accept," because the seller will say, "I did not know. You bought in front of me as if you were the buyer, so it is binding upon you." Is that clear, everyone? Okay. If someone asks, from the perspective of etiquette, is it better for the one for whom it was bought to accept that contract, or is it better not to accept? We said it is better to accept from the perspective of etiquette, especially if we know that this buyer bought it out of effort, not to cause harm or loss. It is not befitting to reward the doer of good with evil, because perhaps the price of the matter is very high, and this buyer does not have money. From the perspective of etiquette, the one for whom it was bought should accept, even if it causes him some discomfort.
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Okay. He bought for him in his debt without his permission. I mean, I know the scenario of the issue. I know that so-and-so wants to buy a watch, so I stood by the watch seller and bought a watch for so-and-so in my debt. He did not appoint me as his agent, nor did he give me permission, and I did not say, "I bought this for so-and-so." I bought it and did not say it was for so-and-so. Then I said to the man for whom I bought it, "I bought a watch for you." If he approves, the ownership belongs to him. If he does not approve, the ownership belongs to me. Okay, did you understand the scenario?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Another example. I know that so-and-so wants to buy a sheep for milk, meaning he wants to buy a sheep to milk it. Did you understand? So I bought him a sheep from a sheep seller, and I did not say it was for so-and-so; I did not name him in the contract. Then I said to my friend for whom I bought it, "I bought you the sheep." He said, "I accept that." So it belongs to him? To whom?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : To the one for whom it was bought. It is valid for the one for whom it was bought. And the milk that is produced after the contract belongs to whom? To the one for whom it was bought, because it is the increase of his property. If he says, "I do not want it; I bought a sheep and I do not want it," then it belongs to whom? To the buyer. It is binding upon him. For this reason, they said, "And it becomes the property of the buyer by its absence," meaning by the absence of approval. It is the property of him, meaning the buyer. And from when does he own it? From the return of the purchased item to him, or from the contract?
The questioner : From the contract.
The Shaykh : From the contract. And on this basis, the milk belongs to whom? To the buyer, or to the one for whom it was bought? To the buyer. Okay, did you understand the scenario in which the unauthorized transaction is valid? It is not valid according to the school of thought except in this scenario: when he buys for a person in his debt, does not name him in the contract, and the one for whom it was bought agrees. Then the contract is valid. Why? They said that because he bought in his debt and did not name him in the contract, the contract becomes binding for the buyer with respect to the seller, whether he gives it to the one for whom he bought it or not. Okay. If he bought for him with the specific money of his own, not in his debt—if he bought for him with the specific money of his own, the sale is not valid if he says to the sheep seller, "Give me a sheep with these dirhams," and intends it for so-and-so. The contract is not valid because he bought for him with the specific money of his own, not in his debt. Likewise, if he named him and said to the sheep owner, "I bought this sheep from you for one hundred for so-and-so," then he led the sheep and delivered it to so-and-so, and so-and-so said, "There is no harm, I accept." Is the sale valid?
The questioner : No, it is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid because he named him in the contract. If he names him in the contract, his purchase for him is by agency, is it not? And did he appoint him as an agent? He did not appoint him. For this reason, they said that if he names him in the contract, the sale is not valid, because if he names him in the contract, he has placed himself in the position of an agent, whereas in reality, he was not appointed as an agent.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he did not name him, that is what they said makes it valid. Okay—pay attention—so the implication of his statement "in his debt" is that if he bought for him with the specific money, it is not valid. The implication of "did not name him in the contract" is that if he named him, it is not valid, even if he approves. Because these conditions are after he approves; if he does not approve, it is not valid. The second opinion in the issue is that it is valid, as we mentioned in the previous lesson, that the unauthorized transaction, if the one for whom it was transacted approves it, is valid. And we mentioned the evidence and the reasoning. If he does not approve? It is binding upon whom?
The questioner : ... the buyer.
The Shaykh : It is binding upon the buyer. So the buyer does not have the right to return it to the seller and say, "I bought it for so-and-so, but he did not accept," because the seller will say, "I did not know. You bought in front of me as if you were the buyer, so it is binding upon you." Is that clear, everyone? Okay. If someone asks, from the perspective of etiquette, is it better for the one for whom it was bought to accept that contract, or is it better not to accept? We said it is better to accept from the perspective of etiquette, especially if we know that this buyer bought it out of effort, not to cause harm or loss. It is not befitting to reward the doer of good with evil, because perhaps the price of the matter is very high, and this buyer does not have money. From the perspective of etiquette, the one for whom it was bought should accept, even if it causes him some discomfort.