An agent may
detain from
his conlli tuent
what he
purchafes,
until he be
paid the
price:
■ rights of the contrail appertain to the agent, and as the conftituent is
informed of this, it follows that he gives his confent to the agent’§
payment of the price from his own property. If, therefore, the
goods be loft in the hands of the agent, and he fliould not previoufly
have made a detention in his own behalf ofthofe goods from his con-
ftituent, the lofs in that cafe falls, upon the conftituent, and he becomes
liable for the price to the agent; becaufe the feizin of the agent,
fo long as he makes no formal detention of the purchafe from his conftituent,
ftands as the feizin of the conftituent-, and therefore he is
held to have been virtually pofieffed of the goods whilft the lols took
place.
A n agent is entitled to detain from his conftituent any purchafe
he may have made on his account, until he be paid the price by him,
according to what was before faid, that the agent ftands as the feller,
and the conftituent (as thepurchafer.— Zijfer maintains that the agent
is not entitled to detain the purchafe, as the'Conftituent has already
made feizin of it ; becaufe, as the feizin of the agent is, virtually, the
feizin of the conftituent, it is confequently the fame as if the agent
had adtually delivered them over to him: the agent’s right of detention,
therefore, (in fatisfadfion of his claim to payment of the price,)
ceafes, in the fame manner as in cafe of his adtual delivery of them..
Our dodtors, on the other hand, argue that the delivery of the g'oods
to the conftituent (on the principle of the feizin of the agent being the
feizin of the conftituent) is a matter of neceflity; but does not imply
any confent on the part of the agent to the relinquilhment of his
right of detention.-—T h e feizin of the agent, moreover, is not the
•aBual feizin of the conftituent; but is rather fufpcnded.— If, therefore,
the agent fhould not detain the goods from his conftituent, his
feizin ftands as the feizin of his conftituent; but if he detain them,
his feizin is then conlidered as on his own behalf.
If, in the cafe before ftated, the agent detain the purchafe from
his conftituent, and it perifli in his hands, he is anfwerable, according
to Aboo Yoofaf, in the fame manner as for a pledge * .— Mohammedxs of
opinion that he is anfwerable in. the fame degree as when goods, the
fubjedt-.of a. fale, decay, or are loft, in the hands of the feller, in
which cafe the refponfibility is for the price, not for the value y—that
is, the purchafer is exempted from the payment, o f the price;— and
fuch is alfo the dodtrine of Haneefa.-—Zijfer, on the contrary, is of
opinion, that refponfibility attaches - in the fame degree as in a cafe of
ujkrpation ’f* ; as the detention has been made without any right.—
T h e argument of Haneefa and Mohammed is that the agent ftands as-
the feller of the article in queftion to the conftituent,. and detains it
from him in order that he may exadt payment for it; and confequently
that the conftituent ftands acquitted of the price on the decay
or deftrudHon of the article in the hands of the agent.— T h e reafoning
of Aboo Toofaf that the thing in queftion, in. the hands o f the agent,,
was not at firft a fubjedt of refponfibility, but became fo in confe-
quence of detention with a view, to fatisfadfcion for the price ; and th e :
fame is the actual property o f a pledge:— contrary to a purchafe; as
that is a fubjedf of refponfibility in the hands of the feller from the f i r j l,.
and not becaufe of detention for the price.. A contradt of fale, moreover,
-is-cancelled in confequence o f the lofs of the fubjedt of it; but in .
the cafe in queftion, the original contradt between the agent and feller
is not annulled.^—:Haneefa and Mohammed, however, maintain that,
though the original contradt of fale be not- annulled, yet the contradt
which virtually fubfifts between the agent and conftituent is annulled,,
in the fame manner as i f the conftituent were.to return the goods to.
the agent on the difcovery of a defedt..
* T h a t is, not at the rate o f the ejiimated price, but o f the actual value.
f T h a t .is , at the.rate o f the f u l l value, whatever that may be.
but i f the
purchafe
perilh in the
agent’s hands
during fuch
detention, he
is refponfible»