father or
grandfather.
He may feH
the article
committed to
him at whatever
rate, and
in return for
whatever
commodity,
he thinks fi,t.
evidence would not be admitted in his {the agent’ s] behalf, fuch as his
father or grandfather.— T h e two difciples allege that if an agent
fhould fell a thing to any perfon whatever, Handing in that relation
to him, (except his Jlave or his Mokatib,) for an equivalent to the
value of the fubject of the fale, it is lawful; becaufe agency is abfolute;
and an agent is not liable to fufpicion from fuch a fale, lince the
property of thofe relations is diftinct and feparate from his property;
and neither party is entitled to derive a benefit from the property of
the other. It is otherwife where an agent fells a thing to his own
Have, becaufe that, in fadt, is a fale to himfelf, as the poffeffions of a
Have are the property o f his mailer; and the right of a mailer extends
to the earnings of his Mokatib, and becomes, in reality, his property
in the event of the Mokatib's inability to difcharge his ranfom.— The
arguments of Haneefa upon this point are twofold.— F ir s t , any
tranfadtion which begets fufpicion mull be excepted from agency
and the adt of fale on the part of the agent, to perfons under the above
defcription, does beget fulpicion, fince they are excluded from giving
evidence in his behalf.— Secondly, a mutual right of ufufrudl and
advantage fubfills between the agent and fuch relations*, lince each is
entitled to derive an advantage from the property of the other; the fale
of any thing to them, therefore, is in a manner a fale to himfelf*—
A fimilar dil'agreement fubfills with refpedt to a contrail of S ir f or of
hire, under thefe circumllances.
W hoever is appointed an agent for the fale of any thing, may
lawfully (according to Haneefa) fell that thing, either for a large or
fmall price, or in exchange for any thing elfe, as well as for money.—
T h e two difciples maintain that it is neither lawful to fell the thing at
a great and obvious difadvantage, nor for any thing but rtiorsy, for the
following realons.— F ir st , agency, although abfolute, is yet reftridted
to the common cuftoms of mankind; becaufe, as all transitions
* Namely, his fathe r and grandfather, (See Jmhifdt.)
6 (fuch
(fuch afjj purchafe and fide, for mftance) are for the purpofe of removing
or remedying a want, they are therefore reftridted to the
meafure of that w a n t ( w h e n c e it is that agency for the purchafe of
a /love, or of ice, or of any animal deftined for facrifice, is reftridted
to the period in which thofe things are wanted;)— and the common
pradtice among mankind is to fell .a thing for an adequate value, and
for this value (not in any thing elfe, but) in money.— Secondly, fale.
at a great and evident difadvantage is partly a fale and partly a g ift;—
in the fame manner, alfo, the fale of goods for other goods (which is
termed Beea Mokdfa, or barter) is fale in one Ihape, and purchafe in
another Ihape ;— neither of thefe, therefore, can be abfolutely termed
a fale.— T h e argument of Haneefa is that agency is abfolute, and mull
therefore be permitted to operate in an abfolute manner, provided it
be not fubjedt to fufpicion.— T h e fale, moreover, of a thing at an
evident difadvantage is a common pradlice when there is preffing oc-
cafion for the price ; and, in the fame manner, it is alfo common to
fell goods in exchange for goods, when one of the proprietors lofes all
defire for his own goods.— With refpedt to the example of the fale of
a fo v e , or of ice, or of an animal deftined for facrifice, (as adduced
by the two difciples in fupport of their opinion,) the dodtrine regarding'them
cannot be admitted, according to the tenets of Haneefa,
fince the contrary is related as an opinion of his upon thofe fubjedts.—
Befides, fale at an evident difadvantage is, neverthelefs, wholly a fale,
and in no refpedt a g ift; whence it is that i f a perfon were to make a
vow, laying “ by G od I will not fell fuch a thing, and afterwards
difpofe of it to an evident lofs, he is forfworn.
O bjection.— If fale at an evident difadvantage be Hill wholly a
fa le, it follows that a father or executor may fell the goods of a minor
at a difadvantage.— How, therefore, does it happen that they are both
debarred from doing this ?
R e p l y .— T h e reafon is that their power is founded entirely upon
their fuppofed regard for the interefti of the minor; and the tranfadtion
in