CR (63) The harm which one may suffer in a forced transaction is the kind in which would one himself, his property, dignity or those of one's concern be involved, if the case is not so and he sells his property, the deal will be valid. (d) A TENTATIVE (fuduly) CONTRACT One of the conditions required for the validity of a transaction about the parties is that they must be able to use the property involved by being the owner, a proxy of the owner, have his permission or be the guardian of the owner. Thus, if the owner is not able to make use of his property, the deal will not be valid, in fact, its validity depends on the permission of one who is able to use it like, the owner, his proxy, one permitted by the owner, or is the guardian of the owner. If permission is obtained the deal becomes valid and if such a person rejects the deal it is not valid. This is what is meant by tentative transaction. According to the popular view, a permission coming after the deal is rejected, is not effective, but this view is not free from objection, in fact, its effectiveness is not far from reality, however, rejecting the deal after giving permission is not effective without doubt.

CR (64) If the owner says, "do not sell my property," and a tentative transaction agent sells such property and the owner then approves it; his previous refusal will have no effect on the validity of the transaction.

CR (65) If one knows that the owner will approve the sale of his property and sells it, the deal will not be valid until the owner approves it.

CR (66) If a tentative transacting agent sells other's property thinking it as his own or considering it as his own as in the case of a usurper and then the owner approves it, the deal will be valid and the price will belong to the real owner.

CR (67) For a permission in order to come into effect only unexpressed consent is not enough, it has to be expressed in some way by words or deeds.

CR (68) Apparently, approval of a deal becomes effective from the time of transaction, thus, the benefits of the price from the time of the deal to the time of approval belong to the owner of the commodity and the benefit or increase in the commodity from the time of transaction to the time of approval will go to the buyer.

CR (69) If one sells a property thinking himself as the guardian of the owner of his proxy and later it is discovered that he was none of those people, if the owner approves the deal, it will be valid, if not it will be invalid, if one sells a property thinking himself as a stranger and then finds himself as a proxy or guardian of the owner, the deal will be valid and permission of the owner is not needed, but if he finds himself the owner, the validity of the deal without his own permission is not free from objection, apparently, it is valid without such permission.

CR (70) If one sells other's property in a tentative transaction and then becomes the owner before the approval of the deal by the first owner, about the validity of the deal without his own approval or with it or the invalidity of the deal totally there are several views and the strongest of such views is that his own approval of the deal is required.

CR (71) If one sells someone property in a tentative transaction and the owner himself sells it to someone else the deal made by the owner will be valid and the deal made by the tentative agent will also be valid if the person who has bought the property from the owner approves the deal of the tentative transacting agent.

CR (72) If a tentative transacting agent sells some one's property and the approval of such deal does not come into existence, the owner may demand for his property from the seller if it is still with him or from both the seller and buyer if it is already given to the latter, if it is consumed or destroyed while with the seller the owner may demand from the seller, if it was given to the buyer, the owner may demand its price or kind from any one of the seller or buyer.

CR (73) The benefits of property sold in a tentative deal bring responsibility, thus, the owner demands from the one who has obtained them. The same rule applies to the increases of the property, the owner may demand such increases from the one who has obtained them, but the responsibility of not-obtained benefits or increases is not free from objection; that they bring responsibility is more apparent.

CR (74) The standard for one's being entitled to receive the price or the kind of property depends on its physical condition. Whatever property is available in the same form in great numbers such as today's manufactured commodities and the demand by the people also differs because of the difference in the qualities of such commodities. In such case, if certain commodities are consumed or destroyed the owner is entitled to received its kind. If the commodity is found very rarely then in a case like the one mentioned the owner is entitled to receive its price such as the rare precious stones etc.

CR (75) Apparently, the price for which one becomes responsible is neither the price of the time of obtaining the commodity not the price of the time it is consumed or destroyed nor the price of the time of payment.

CR (76) In the case of a transaction, herein called a tentative one, if the owner does not approve the deal, the aftermath of such transaction may have several possibilities. (a) The seller must give to buyer the price, he has received. If the owner demands from the buyer something for his property in the form of its price or kind, the buyer is not entitled to demand from the seller anything but for the extra money that he may have paid to the owner, provided, he has suffered losses in the contract. If the owner demands his property from the seller, the seller can demand from the buyer the agreed price if he has not yet received it, and he cannot demand from buyer any extra money that he may have paid to the owner if he the seller was the reason for this. If the owner demands from the buyer for the increases of the property or the equivalent of the benefits that are obtained, if the buyer is deceived in the whole matter by the seller while the seller is aware of the case but the seller tells the buyer that he is the owner or the buyer thinks that the seller is the owner he can demand from the seller all the loss that he has suffered because of the owners demand, but if he was not deceived in the matter by the seller, i.e. the buyer knew about the matter or the seller also did not know about the fact of the matter, the buyer is not entitled to demand from the seller any of the loss he may have suffered because of the owner's demand. If the owner demands from the seller for the increases of his property, if the buyer is deceived by the seller in the matter, the seller is not entitled to ask the buyer to pay him for any of the loss that he may have suffered by paying to the owner. If the buyer has not suffered any loss the seller asks him to compensate the owner, the same rule applies to other people who may get involved in such a matter, those having the property in their hands first can demand their losses from those who obtain such property after them, provided, the first ones have not deceived those after them, otherwise, they are not entitled to demand from those who have the property in their hands. If the owner demands his property from the ones who have such property in their hands latter on, these people cannot demand their losses from those before them if they were not deceived in the matter. This rule also, applies to the properties that are not private, such as Zakat already kept aside from the rest of one's other property and properties of endowment, for special use or general use, for the welfare of one or many people, the supervisor demands such losses from the one who has them in his hands, if it is available and follows the above mentioned rules if the property is already consumed or destroyed.

CR (77) If one sells his property and some property of another person all together in one deal, the transaction will only be valid for his own property and for the rest, validity depends upon the permission of the owner of the rest of the property, thus, the buyer has the right of separating the mixed property, therefore, he may revoke the whole deal.

CR (78) The following is the way to separate the mixed property mentioned in rule 77: Both properties have to be priced according to their market value. The buyer demands from the seller an amount that has the same ratio to the price in the deal as that of the price of the property that do not in fact belong to the seller to the total market price of both properties combined. Thus, if the value of the seller's property is 10 units of money and the value of the property not belonging to the seller is 5 units of money and the price paid by the buyer is 3 units the buyer demands only 1 unit of money from the seller. This is acceptable only if combining the properties may not have any effect on the total price, otherwise, each property has to be priced when combined and the proper ratio to both prices has to be found and an amount of the same ratio is deducted from the price. Thus, if the value of property 'A' and property 'B' when combined would be 5 units of money and the value of property 'A' alone would be 6 units but when together 4 units of money and the value of property 'B' would be quite the opposite of the value of property 'A' in both conditions. If property 'A' did not belong to the seller the buyer demands 2/5, which is 2/8 of the price, and there remains 3/5 for the seller. If property 'B' does not belong to the seller, the buyer demands 3/5 of the price he has paid, which are 3/5 and 2/5 remains for the seller.

CR (79) If two people equally own one house and one of them sells half of that house, if somehow it would be possible to know the amount of the house sold the deal will be considered effective accordingly but if there would be no sign as such the deal will be considered as having taken place about the half that belongs to the seller.

CR (80) It is lawful for the father and grand-father from the father's side ,regardless, how distant they may be to use and handle the property of their children and grand children in a transaction, both father and grand-fathers are independent as guardians of their children. They (father and grandfather) do not need permission of each other. Their guardianship is effective even though they may not be just in their over all practice, or they may not have any benefits in their dealings with the property. In fact, if their dealing would be free from harm it justifies the deal or use. For instance, if a guardian would be in need of selling his children's property and the property could be sold for more, their deal is not lawful.

The same rule applies if the difference should be an amount like one Dirham or two the guardian is not allowed to sell for less even though selling for less may have some benefit but at the same time selling for less would be considered carelessness toward the property of a child. The standard of harm and benefit is the decision of the people reason in the matter, not the knowledge of the unseen, thus, if a guardian uses a child's property in a deal and the deal is not reasonable to the people of reason, such deal will not be valid, but if while people of reason approve, it is discovered that the deal is not reasonable, according to the knowledge of the unseen, the deal will be considered valid.

CR (81) The father and grandfather are entitled to handle the affairs of the minor like making him work as an employee or such other ways of working. The same rule applies to their marriage, etc.; however; they can not divorce his wife. Can they annual the contract of his marriage when there is sufficient reason to do so or waive the remaining time of his temporary marriage, there are two views about it. According to the view closer to reality, they can annual such contract.

CR (82) If the father and grandfather appoint someone as guardian of his minors after his death, his appointment and will is effective and he is entitled to undertake all the tasks about minors which the guardian was entitled to do. It is necessary for him to be trustworthy and of sound reason, according to a strong reason having the quality of justice is not necessary. For the effectiveness of such will, it is necessary that it be after the death of both father and grandfather. If one of them is still alive the will is not effective.

CR (83) Besides father and grand-father from the father's side or their agent others are entitled to make a will about the minors, like uncle, mother, grand-father from the mother's side or the elder brother. Any of such people's handling of the affairs and properties of the minors is not valid and it is dependent upon the permission of guardian.