theft
When is taking property left on the public street curb a crime?
<p>In which of the following scenarios has a crime been committed by Jane?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>John puts a chair on the street curb at his house. Jane drives by, sees the chair, and loads it in her car and drives away.</p>
</li>
<li><p>John puts a chair on the street curb at his house with a sign saying &quot;$5&quot;. Jane drives by, sees the chair, and loads it in her car and leaves no money.</p>
</li>
<li><p>John bakes cookies, puts out a chair at the street curb at his house, sets the cookies on the chair with a sign saying &quot;Cookies $5/dozen&quot;. Jane drives by, sees the cookies, take a dozen and leaves no money.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Assume US, thought I'd be interested to hear of differences around the world.</p>
<p>Edit:<br />
Jane sees the signs and knows that payment is expected (in 2 &amp; 3).<br />
Jane intends to keep the chair permanently/indefinitely.<br />
Jane intends to eat the cookies.</p>

<p>Generally: Theft. All Three times. With only one exception. <a href="/questions/tagged/germany" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;germany&#39;" rel="tag">germany</a></p>
<ol>
<li><p>I assume that John declared &quot;Sperrmüll&quot; and put it out for collection or was put into the black bin. The chair thus was properly intended to be given to the trash collection service. The declared item was put out for collection or chucked into the bin. Till the moment the waste truck arrives, the item is property of John, then he relinquishes ownership via <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__959.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 959 BGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p3867" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Abandonment of Ownership</a> the moment the declared item is pricked up by the intended recipient, which has (prospect) ownership interest<sup>1</sup>. For example, waste disposal services could burn a wood chair for its thermic value, a metal one would be scrapped etc. Jane isn't allowed to take it, so she steals from them<sup>2</sup> under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__242.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 242 StGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Theft</a><sup>3</sup>.</p>
<ul>
<li>In case John just put the chair onto the street without anything in the intent to dispose of it, he might be guilty of &quot;<a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__326.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Unerlaubter Umgang mit Abfällen&quot;</a> aka &quot;Wild Littering&quot; (<a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__326.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 326 StGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p3054" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Unauthorised Waste Management</a>) if he can be identified, but at the same time, Jane does steal from him under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__242.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 242 StGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Theft</a>, as he never relinquished ownership properly (because §326 and local ordinances preclude that).</li>
<li>John puts out the chair to dispose of it to <em>anyone</em> and makes sure it's clear to everybody that he has relinquished his ownership to whoever wants it by putting a sign <em>gift</em> or <em>for free</em> on it. Now he still might commit wild littering but he also properly relinquishes the item under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__959.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 959 BGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p3867" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Abandonment of Ownership</a>, Jane would acquire the chair under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__958.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 958 BGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#p3864" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Acquisition of ownership of ownerless movable things</a></li>
<li>In case John didn't want to dispose of the chair but just place it there so he can have a break there later, it's just Jane committing theft under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__242.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 242 StGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Theft</a>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><p>The chair was John's property for sale. Jane took it without the required payment to make it a sale contract and the intent to deprive him of chair and money. So she steals it under <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__242.html#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 242 StGB</a> <a href="https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p2228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Theft</a>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>It's exactly the same case as 2, but replace &quot;chair&quot; with &quot;cookies&quot;.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><sup>1 - if John doesn't own the item, he can't relinquish the item and so technically the waste disposal service does commit theft, yet in declaring the item for collection, John also declared he would own all items or have the allowance to put them for collection or pay for any and all damages that result from him disposing of the items.</sup></p>
<p><sup>2 - the collective of both John and the Waste Disposal Service - technically both can sue jointly and separately</sup></p>
<p><sup>3 - As an extra caveat: John <em>also</em> needs to make sure that his Sperrmüll doesn't create dangers or harms anyone, as he is liable for damages from it till it is collected. <em>Even</em> if Jane would throw around the waste and create the danger. The best he might manage is to get part of the fines back from Jane for contributing to the danger, but he is technically required to prevent or remove the danger.</sup></p>

<h2>Larceny (at least twice)</h2>
<p><a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The essential elements of that offence are —</p>
<ol>
<li><p>that the property must belong to someone other than the accused;</p>
</li>
<li><p>it must be taken and carried away; and</p>
</li>
<li><p>the taking must be without the consent of the owner of the property.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Beyond those three elements or requirements, there are an additional three elements which relate to the accused’s mental state at the time of the taking, namely —</p>
<ol start="4">
<li><p>the property must be taken with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of it;</p>
</li>
<li><p>the property must be taken without a claim of right made in good faith; and</p>
</li>
<li><p>the property must be taken dishonestly.</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>In all cases, 1, 2, 3 are all satisfied. 4 is also satisfied since the act of appropriating property for your own use satisfies this even if you intend to return it.</p>
<p>For cases 2 &amp; 3, 5 &amp; 6 are satisfied the fact that the property is indicated as being for sale means that the taker neither has a claim of right in good faith nor that they are acting honestly.</p>
<p>For case 1, the prosecution would need to prove that the accused did not have a good faith belief that the chair was abandoned to satisfy 5. If they can do that, 6 probably follows.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>In which of the following scenarios has a crime been committed?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The first scenario is inconclusive. The circumstances might support the argument that John just wanted to get rid of the chair. For instance, he might have posted an ad on the <a href="https://annarbor.craigslist.org/d/free-stuff/search/zip" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Free webpage of Craigslist</a>.</p>
<p>Scenarios two and three support a finding of theft, conversion, or the like. Jane knew or should have known that the sign &quot;$5&quot; reflects John's intent to obtain money in exchange for the good(s) at issue. In terms of contract law, the sign is indicative of John's <em>offer</em>, one of the elements of a contract.</p>
<p>A finding of liability does not depend that much on whether Jane's <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/59439/in-which-of-the-following-scenarios-has-a-crime-been-committed#comment122624_59439">intent was to <em>permanently</em> deprive</a> John of the goods. Jane's retention of the cookies for two months will have caused as much harm as if she kept them permanently (or ate them) because nobody would buy rancid or bitten cookies. Even if retention lasted only few minutes, John himself might no longer want the cookies for fear that now they might be adulterated, poisonous, etc.</p>
<p>Likewise, Jane's temporary retention of the chair might also have prevented John from getting revenues because now cheaper chairs might be for sale at the retail store, or because the chair got damaged while under Jane's unauthorized possession.</p>

<p>The first one would not be considered theft if jurisdiction considers the property as abandoned. Numerous rulings, including federal. Discarding item relinquishes property rights.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1391283140463470954&amp;q=705+ne+2d+1022%5C&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here is one. Many others available</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Defendants argue that the trash in Dilling's dumpster was abandoned property. They cite the holdings of various criminal cases dealing with Fourth Amendment ...
Although numerous issues were raised on appeal, we find one issue dispositive: Whether the bags of trash Long took from Dilling's dumpster were abandoned property. We answer in the affirmative, and reverse and remand with instructions.</p>
</blockquote>
