Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/182

Paragraph 1- In all matters a person can become an agent of another except for matters of sin because we rule that there is no agency for matters of sin. This is only where the agent himself is one who is obligated not to violate this sin. If he is not obligated, however, he would be an agent, even for matters of sin. If one tells his agent to sell real property or movable items for him or to purchase for him, he can sell, purchase and perform his agency and all of his actions will be effective. One who appoints an agent does not need to make a kinyan or have witnesses. Mere words between him and the agent will suffice. Witnesses are only necessary to be able to reveal the agent was appointed in the event one of the parties denies it. Thus, if one tells another to purchase this merchandise and he will be partners and he went ahead and purchased it, the sender cannot retract because the purchaser is like his agent.

Paragraph 2- If the agent violated the wishes of the sender, his actions are of no effect. This only applies where the agent informed the seller that he was so and so’s agent. Therefore, even though the agent pulled or is pulling the item if it is discovered that he violated the wishes of his sender, the sale is void and he would return the item. If the agent did not inform the seller that he is so and so’s agent, however, he would acquire the item and any litigation would be between the agent and his sender.

Paragraph 3- If the agent erred and purchased at a higher price, the sale would be void, even if it was a minuscule amount, because the sender can say “I sent you to help me, not hurt me.” Thus, if when he appointed him he made a condition that the he would be an agent regardless of whether he helps or hurts, he would not be able to retract and must pay the agreed upon amount, even if he sold something worth a maneh for a dinar or purchased something worth a dinar for a maneh. If one instructed another to deal with a certain matter and the agent incurred more expenses than is customary for such a matter, the sender does not need to reimburse him because it did not enter his mind that the agent would spend so much. If he did not incur more expenses than is customary, however, the sender would be required to reimburse him. If there is a disagreement between them, see above 90:3 and 93:4.

Paragraph 4- There are those who say that so long as the sender cannot prove he appointed an agent without specification, the seller can say the sender made a condition with the agent both to help and to hurt, and the party trying to remove the money has the burden of proof.

Paragraph 5- If the agent mislead the purchaser, the law would be the same as with any other person and the sale would be valid for an error up to 1/6. The sender would acquire the surplus.

Paragraph 6- If one gave money to his messenger to purchase real property for him and he purchased it without a guarantee, this would be considered to the sender’s detriment and the agenty will have purchased the property for himself without a guarantee and would sell it to the sender with a guarantee, who would acquire it with the money he sent. The guarantee would be given by the agent. This is only where the sender is satisfied with the agent’s guarantee and wants the sale to take effect. If he is not satisfied and wants to void the sale, however, he may do so. There are those who say this is only where the agent cannot return his money. If the agent is willing to return his money, however, he may do so.

Paragraph 7- If one gives money to his agent to purchase fruit and to arrange with the seller to give it on a certain date, and the agent erred and did not make a condition with the seller to give at the rate when the market was cheapest and the rate subsequently went down, this is to the seller’s detriment and the sender can retract. Neither the agent nor the sender would be required to accept the “mi shepara” curse,” even if the agent did not tell the seller he was an agent and purchased without specifying.

Paragraph 8- If one tells his agent to sell a seah of my field and the agent went and sold two seah, the agent has added to the sender’s words and the purchaser will only acquire one seah. The purchaser can retract, however, and say he only wants to purchase two seah together.

Paragraph 9- If the sender told the agent to sell two seah and he only sold one, the agent has violated the sender’s words and the purchaser will not acquire the property.

Paragraph 10- If the sender told the agent to sell a field to one person and the agent went ahead and sold it to two people, the sale would be void because he violated his words. There are those who say this is only where he sold to them in two different documents.

Paragraph 11- If the sender told the agent to sell a field and did not specify, the sale would be valid, even if he sold to 100 buyers. When is this true? Where he sold with one document or he sold with two documents and signed on them. If he sold to two with two documents and did not sign, however, the sale would be void.

Paragraph 12- If one appointed an agent to purchase a field for him and the seller tells the agent he is selling on condition that he return the field once the seller gets the money, and the agent responds, “you and the sender are friends and will come to a compromise,” the sale would only be valid with the condition and the sender would have to return it when the seller wants. The status of the fruits that were consumed is discussed in Tur Yoreh Deah Siman 174.