Agency is the act of delegating a transaction (muʿāmalah) that a person has the right to perform himself to someone else so that he may perform the task on his behalf. The transaction may be a contract (ʿaqd) or a unilateral instigation (īqāʿ)[1] or something related to these, such as handing over and taking possession of something. For example, a person may appoint an agent (wakīl) to sell his house for him or marry him to a woman. Therefore, someone who is foolish with finances (safīh)[2] cannot appoint an agent to sell his house for him as he does not have right of disposal over his property.

Ruling 2275. To form an agency agreement, it is not necessary to say a particular formula (ṣīghah). Therefore, if a person conveys to someone that he has made him his agent and the other individual, in turn, conveys to him that he has accepted it – as when a person gives his property to someone to sell it for him and the latter takes it – the agency is valid (ṣaḥīḥ).

Ruling 2276. If a person appoints someone in another city to be his agent and sends him a letter of agency and the latter accepts, the agency is valid even if the letter of agency reaches him a while after it was sent.

Ruling 2277. Both the principal (muwakkil) – i.e. the person who appoints someone to be his agent – and the agent must be sane (ʿāqil). Furthermore, both must have an intention (qaṣd) to enter into the agreement and do so of their own volition (ikhtiyār). The principal must have reached the age of legal responsibility (bulūgh), except in those cases where it is valid for a child who is able to discern between right and wrong (mumayyiz) [to carry out the transaction].

Ruling 2278. A person must not become an agent to perform a task that he is not capable of performing or is legally (sharʿan) prohibited from performing. For example, a person who is in the state of iḥrām[3] for hajj and is therefore not permitted to say the formula for a marriage contract cannot become an agent for someone to say the formula for him.

Ruling 2279. If a person appoints someone to be his agent to perform all his tasks for him, it is valid. However, if he appoints him to be his agent to perform one of his tasks for him but does not specify which task, the agency is not valid. But, if he appoints him to be his agent to perform one of a number of tasks at the agent’s discretion – for example, he appoints him as his agent to either sell his house or give it on rent (ijārah) – the agency is valid.

Ruling 2280. If a person deposes his agent – i.e. he discharges him from his duty – then once news of this reaches the agent, he cannot perform the task for which he was appointed. However, it is valid if he performs the task before the news reaches him.

Ruling 2281. An agent can discharge himself from the agency, even if the principal is absent.

Ruling 2282. An agent cannot appoint someone else to be his agent to perform the task that was delegated to him to perform. If the principal authorises him to appoint an agent, he must act in the manner that he was instructed. Therefore, if the principal states, ‘Appoint an agent for me’, he must appoint an agent who will act on behalf of the principal and cannot appoint someone who will act on behalf of himself.

Ruling 2283. If with the authorisation of the principal an agent appoints someone to be an agent for the principal, the agent cannot depose him. If the first agent dies or the principal deposes him, the second agency does not become void (bāṭil).

Ruling 2284. If with the authorisation of the principal an agent appoints someone to be an agent for himself, both the principal and the first agent can depose him. If the first agent dies or is deposed, the second agency becomes void.

Ruling 2285. If a person appoints a number of people to be his agents to perform a task and authorises each of them to act solitarily in the performance of that task, then any one of them can perform that task. In the event that one of them dies, the agency of the others does not become void. However, if it was said that they must perform the task together, or it was said in a general way, ‘You two are my agents’, they cannot act solitarily. In the event that one of them dies, the agency of the others becomes void.

Ruling 2286. If the agent or the principal dies, the agency becomes void. If the item over which the person was appointed to have disposal perishes – for example, the sheep that the person was appointed to sell dies – the agency becomes void. Similarly, if one of them becomes permanently insane or loses consciousness, the agency becomes void. However, if one of them intermittently becomes insane or loses consciousness, then to say the agency becomes void while he is insane or unconscious, let alone when he is in neither of these states, is problematic (maḥall al‑ishkāl) [i.e. based on obligatory precaution (al‑iḥtiyāṭ al‑wājib), the agency does not become void].[4]

Ruling 2287. If a person appoints someone to be his agent to perform a task and agrees on a remuneration, then upon completion of the task, he must remunerate him according to the agreement.

Ruling 2288. If an agent is not negligent in safeguarding the property that has been placed in his possession and does not use it in any manner except in the way he was authorised, and it so happens the property is destroyed, he is not responsible (ḍāmin) for it.

Ruling 2289. If an agent is negligent in safeguarding the property that has been placed in his possession or uses it in a manner that was not authorised, and the property is destroyed, he is responsible for it. Therefore, if he wears a piece of clothing that he was told to sell and that clothing is ruined, he must replace it.

Ruling 2290. If an agent uses the property in a manner that was not authorised – for example, he wears a piece of clothing that he was told to sell – and afterwards disposes of it as he was authorised, that disposal is valid.