Ruling 2091. Six conditions must be fulfilled by the seller and the buyer [for the transaction to be valid]:

1. they must be of the age of legal responsibility (bāligh);

2. they must be sane (ʿāqil);

3. they must not be foolish with finances (safīh); i.e. they must not spend their wealth in futile ways;

4. they must have an intention to buy and sell. Therefore, if, for example, someone jokingly says, ‘I sell my property’, the transaction is void;

5. they must not be compelled by anyone [to carry out the transaction];

6. they must, respectively, be the owners of the commodity being sold and the payment made in exchange.

The rulings about these conditions will be explained below.

Ruling 2092.* A transaction carried out with a non-bāligh child who acts independently in the transaction is void even if it is carried out with the permission of his guardian. The exception to this is a transaction of things that have little value and with which it is normal to transact with a non-bāligh child who is able to discern between right and wrong (mumayyiz); such a transaction is valid if the child has permission from his guardian. If the transaction is carried out with his guardian (walī) and the non-bāligh mumayyiz child only says the formula (ṣīghah)[1] for the transaction, it is valid in each case. In fact, if the commodity or the money belongs to someone else and the child sells the commodity as the agent (wakīl) of the owner or buys something with the money, the apparent (ẓāhir)[2] ruling is that the transaction is valid even though the mumayyiz child may be independent in having disposal over the commodity/money. Similarly, if the child merely acts as an intermediary for delivering the money to the seller, the transaction is valid even if the child is not mumayyiz because in reality, two bāligh people will have transacted with one another.

Ruling 2093. If a person buys something from or sells something to a non-bāligh child when transactions with such a child are not valid, he must return the commodity or the money that was taken from the child – in the event that it was the property of the child – to his guardian. If, however, it belonged to someone else, he must return it to its owner or obtain the owner’s consent. In the event that he does not know who the owner is and does not possess any means of identifying him, he must give the thing he acquired from the child to the poor on behalf of the owner as radd al‑maẓālim.[3] And the obligatory precaution is that to do this, he must obtain permission from a fully qualified jurist (al‑ḥākim al‑sharʿī).

Ruling 2094. If a person carries out a transaction with a mumayyiz child when transactions with such a child are not valid, and the child destroys the commodity or the money he gave him, he can claim it from the child’s guardian or the child himself after he becomes bāligh. If the child is not mumayyiz or he is mumayyiz but does not destroy the property himself but it is destroyed while it is with him, albeit as a result of his negligence or dissipation, he is not responsible (ḍāmin) for it.

Ruling 2095. If a buyer or a seller is compelled to carry out a transaction but then consents to it after the transaction – for example, he says, ‘I consent’ – the transaction is valid. However, the recommended precaution (al‑iḥtiyāṭ al‑mustaḥabb) is that the two parties should repeat the transaction formula.

Ruling 2096. If a person sells someone’s property without his authorisation, the transaction is void if the owner does not consent to its sale and does not subsequently authorise it.

Ruling 2097. The father and paternal grandfather of a child, and the executor (waṣī) of the father or the executor of the paternal grandfather of a child, can sell the property belonging to the child. In case none of them is alive, a dutiful (ʿādil) jurist (mujtahid)[4] can also sell the property of an insane person, an orphan child, or a missing person if a matter of primary importance necessitates it.

Ruling 2098. If a person usurps some property and sells it, and after that the owner of the property authorises the transaction, the transaction is valid. From the time of the transaction, the property that the usurper sells to the buyer and its usufruct belong to the buyer. And from the time of the transaction, the thing that the buyer gives and its usufruct belong to the person whose property was usurped.

Ruling 2099. If a person usurps some property and then sells it with the intention that the money acquired in return belongs to him, in the event that the owner of the usurped property authorises the transaction, the transaction is valid. However, the money belongs to the owner, not the usurper.