Tom,

Your friend stole and you were the knowing accomplice.

How does that make you feel?

Worst case is some unknown guy got poor service or his food spit in later. I'm ok with that.

I guess you would have snitched about something that may or may not have been theft? How does that make you feel?

I guess you could say he stole goodwill from the waitress.

I think not. The waitress still has the same amount of money and hence the same goodwill.

Diablo makes a great point and also eludes to the argument that in the spousal situation, the theft is from the payer, not the waitress. It doesn't really matter if you're married or the bills touch the check, it's up to the victim to dispute and sucks for the waitress if he's a cuck.

A tip is an optional payment for service. Person A gave the waitress a payment for this service. Person B clearly stole that payment.

The fact that he then turned around and made his own "bigger" (allegedly) optional payment for the service he received is irrelevant, imo.

Does the end result need to be different for a theft to occur? If I steal something then return it later - isn't that theft even though there might not be any actual permanent damages to the owner?

Person A gave the waitress payment for this service, and the waitress received it. Person B’s actions deprived the waitress of nothing.

I haven’t researched the issue in any detail, but I believe the common-law definition of theft requires the permanent deprivation of property.

The friend’s actions are sketchy and dishonest, but I don’t think they fit within the definition of theft.

To your direct question, if you take something and intend at the time to permanently deprive the owner of it, that’s theft even if you return it later. Intention is measured at the time of the taking. Here, though, the friend never intended to deprive the rightful owner (the waitress) of the money.

I’ll see if I can dig out some litigated theft cases to see if they’re consistent with my analysis here, which is based on nothing but reading the elements of theft (which were ambiguous, because the exact definition is different in different states).

I don‘t think the waitress is the rightful owner until she picks up the money. Until that point in time the customer can still decide to come back and deduct any amount, choose a completely different form of payment or dispute the bill.
Therefore the friend has stolen from the other customer.

El D,

If the guy at the next table says “so long as the waitress gets my tip, I don’t care what happens” as he gets up and leaves, is it still theft?

The issue here turns on when the money no longer belongs to the patron at the next table.

Sure, so let’s take that possibility out of the equation. Let’s suppose the other patron, being a law geek, says as he gets up “I’m leaving and I have no intention of ever returning.” He then walks out. Same answer?

So if I take someone's bike for a few days with the intention of returning it, thereby not permanently depriving the owner of it, that's not theft?

That's conversion.

So is person who takes the tip off the other table and places it with his tip guilty of conversion but not theft?

Hinges on the ownership of the money at the point that it has been left on the table unsupervised but not yet picked up. I would still assign more ownership interest to the customer at that point than the waitress, and in that case I call it theft for the reason already mentioned, that he permanently deprived that customer of the value that he was using that money for. If the money is owned by the waitress before she has ever picked it up, I'm not sure it necessarily falls under either.

Dammit I let myself get drawn back in. Shame on me.

It is totally fascinating when the law-pros contribute to such derail.

Applies to most jobs, no?

"Entitled to" rather than "owned by" is a better phrase for both though.

I think LKJ and I agree on the structure of the inquiry. I’d phrase it ever so slightly differently, though, and say that it hinges on ownership at the precise moment OP’s friend picked up the money. And if the intent of the other patron is to benefit the waitress with the payment, then the other patron is deprived of exactly nothing when OP’s friend leaves the money for the waitress.

Suppose for a moment that a lightning bolt strikes the other patron as he exits the restaurant, precluding any ability on his part to return to the table.

And yes, I’m drawing a distinction between conversion and theft.

This is definitely a derail, but it’s hopefully somewhat interesting to everyone. I did find some offbeat theft cases — many of which involve someone taking something from garbage — but nothing quite on point here. I can post later tonight if anyone would like.

PASS!

Coming from you, 27, that’s actually an ENCOURAGEMENT to post these.

I find it really interesting.

But one could argue that people leave a tip to improve the server's impression of them. After all, that's why the friend took the tip in the first place.

It doesn't even need to be for romantic purposes, just a general desire to be recognized for participating in social norms.

Taking your situation of the patron being hit by lightning outside the restaurant. The fact that he doesn't receive recognition for the tip is damaging to his reputation and image when the server mutters something about him deserving it to other people.

When christmas came my aunt always told us kids to open the gift packages without breaking them so she could save the wrapping paper for next christmas. She's not poor or anything, just stingy like that.

If anybody had witnessed this in real time and understood the intention, I would think it would almost be 100% that it is not theft and just laugh at the guy.

Some may clarify it to the waitress or even call the guy out to embarrass him, but I don't think accusing him of theft would come up.

No it's not.