The Roommate and the Missing Wallet
Leah and Tom share an apartment. Leah's wallet, containing 200 dollars and a transit card, disappears from the kitchen table. Tom had a gambling debt and had asked Leah for a loan the day before; she refused. Two days later, Leah finds the empty wallet in Tom's gym bag. Tom says he 'borrowed' it to pay a debt and 'was going to put it back Friday' when his paycheck arrived. His paycheck is due Friday, and he has never missed a repayment to Leah before. There is no written agreement. The jurisdiction treats taking with intent to repay as capable of being theft if the taker knew he had no right to take the money. Tom admits he knew Leah would object. The wallet was found before Friday.
1. Determine whether Tom had the intent permanently to deprive Leah of the money, applying the 'intent to repay' issue.
Read the worked answer
The central question is whether an intent to repay negates the intent permanently to deprive. The answer depends on whether Tom intended to return the identical money or merely equivalent value.
If Tom took 200 dollars in cash and planned to replace it with 200 dollars from his paycheck, he did not intend to return the same notes. Taking money and intending to repay an equivalent sum is generally treated as intending permanently to deprive the owner of those specific notes, because money is consumed on use. The owner loses the actual property.
Tom's admission that he knew Leah would object matters for dishonesty. He took without consent, concealed the taking, and only the discovery of the wallet in his bag revealed it. The absence of a written agreement does not create a right to take; a loan requires consent.
The fact that he had always repaid before goes to character and credibility, not to the mental state at the time of taking.
Conclusion: Tom likely had the intent permanently to deprive Leah of the specific notes, so the intent-to-repay argument does not defeat theft. The exam point is the distinction between returning the same property and repaying equivalent value.
2. Leah wants to report theft. Identify the strongest defence Tom could raise and explain why it likely fails.
Read the worked answer
Tom's strongest defence is a claim of right: he believed he was entitled to borrow the money because he intended to repay it and had a history of repaying. A genuine belief in a legal right to the property can negate dishonesty, even if the belief is mistaken.
Why it likely fails: a claim of right must be a belief in a right to take, not merely a belief that one will be able to repay later. Tom admitted he knew Leah would object. That admission shows he knew he had no permission, which undercuts any belief in entitlement. Borrowing without consent is not a right; it is the very thing theft prohibits.
The concealment is also damaging. Placing the empty wallet in a gym bag and saying nothing until confronted is consistent with consciousness of wrongdoing, not with an honest claim of right.
Finally, the timing: the wallet was found before Friday, so Tom cannot argue the repayment date had arrived. The exam point is that intent to repay addresses deprivation, while claim of right addresses dishonesty; Tom fails on both because he knew consent was absent.