Is the a retainer simply a synonym for a deposit? Is a typical retainer's purpose to be a deposit for work to be done? IANAL and seeking to understand why and how the typical retainer works.
A retainer can be either pre-payment for services (a deposit) or it can be a payment for a promise of availability (a "true" retainer). A lawyer may ask for pre-payment to avoid extending credit to the client. A lawyer might want to do this if he's dealing with a new client or for some other reason thinks that he might not be paid. This type of pre-payment is refundable if the client does not use all of the deposit amount. A "true" retainer is much less common, but still exists in some circumstances. A "true" retainer is paid purely to guarantee the availability of the lawyer; any work done by the lawyer will be billed separately. A client might want this to reserve a particular lawyer for some work in the future. The client would pay the retainer amount and the lawyer would promise not to take on any conflicting work that would prevent him from representing the client. This type of payment is usually non-refundable. Those are basically the differences between the two usages.
Is this legal? Yes Or does it mean that employee will be in breach of his/her contract? Yes You are assuming that if the evidence is allowed to be presented then that automatically means that keeping it for that purpose is not a breach of the contract. This is not necessarily so; it can be both at the same time. That said, it is unlikely that an employer would attempt to sanction an employee for this as the courts would (rightly) see it as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. As in most things in the law it is possible for all parties in a matter to be on the wrong side of it. If you want to come to the tribunal with "clean hands" then the best thing to do is make a record (not a copy) of the relevant documents and return then to the employer. Before going to the tribunal get your solicitor to subpoena the documents that you want - they will have to produce them and you have them without breaking your contract.
Theoretically speaking, this is not theft. You are correct in that theft requires specific intent: to permanently deprive someone from the use and enjoyment of one of their lawful possessions. In real life, it is a matter of evidence of course. Saying you were only borrowing can be proven otherwise based on your actions. I should also mention that if you "borrow" something an there were obligations attached to that borroeing (e.g. "you can borrow it but you mustnt use it like this, or you must return it in a week") then failing to abide by those obligations can be sufficient to show intention to deprive. Furthermore "borrowing something" and consuming its entire usefulness for yourself counts as the permanent deprivation of the use of the possession from the owner. E.g. "borrowing" concert tickets and returning them after a concert (see s.6 Theft Act 1968) R v Lloyd, Bhuee &amp; Ali [1985] QB 829 also tells us that the condition of something borrowed once returned may be indicative of whether there was an intention to permanently deprive someone of their rights to property.
The physical cash in the bank is not your property, at least not in US law (according to Scalia). It becomes your property when the withdrawal is performed by some means specified in your contract. A deposit gives you a contractual right to demand money from the bank. Bank robbery is a crime. Having money deposited with the bank doesn't change that. The only possible chance a robber has at trial is jury nullification. I haven't found records for that in Lebanon, but it does have jury trials. Impartial review classifies Lebanon's justice system as somewhat corrupt, but generally compliant with the basic principles. So it might be possible to get away with it at trial, but a very long shot.
My recollection is there's a big difference between money and property. I found a 1929 law journal article that supports my recollection. The owner of stolen property is entitled to have it returned. If the person who obtained it from the thief didn't know it was stolen, the person didn't commit a crime, but must give up the property and is not entitled to any compensation (unless the person can get compensation from the thief). A person who innocently receives money is the holder in due course, and gets to keep it. The victim's only recourse is to get compensation from the thief.
It is sometimes necessary or desirable to hold customer money in a separate account because it is their property. For lawyers, this kind of account is highly regulated. For most other kinds of businesses, this kind if account is not highly regulated. If you were required to have an account of this time, you could not borrow against it or pledge it as collateral. The whole point of having a separate account is to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the customers separate from your own funds and not subject to your creditors. Sometimes a separate account of this type is set up to fund an employee retirement fund that does not qualify for the tax treatment of a 401(k) or IRA or similar account. An account set up for this purpose is called a "Rabbi Trust" (political correctness was not a big thing when this kind of trust was given its name, and the name has unfortunately stuck). But, in those circumstances the exposure to the firm's creditors is intended from the outset for tax purposes and to give the beneficiaries an incentive not to screw up the company, rather than being problematic.
australia A tenant must return the property in the state it was given subject to fair wear and tear Fair wear and tear represents the deterioration that occurs in normal use - so it includes wear on a carpet from walking on it but not wear from having a horse walk on it (unless you’re renting a stable but who puts carpet in a stable?) If the wall is in the condition that it was given to you but for the normal deterioration over time, then you are not liable to fix it. As for who has the onus of proof, since the landlord is the one claiming the entitlement, they have to prove it. However, the burden is only the balance of probabilities. So, if there is a fist shaped hole in the plaster wall and there is no evidence it was there when the tenant moved in, then, it’s more likely than not that it happened on the tenant’s watch and they have to fix it. Because putting fists through walls is something that residents are more likely to do than landlords. However, if there is a painted wall and the initial application of the paint is defective, then absent evidence that the tenant painted the wall, it’s more likely than not that the landlord did it. Because painting walls is something landlords are more likely to do than residents.
The landlord is complying with a city ordinance that mandates security deposits must earn interest that belongs to you. A security deposit and interest due thereon shall continue to be the property of the tenant making such deposit, shall not be commingled with the assets of the landlord, and shall not be subject to the claims of any creditor of the landlord or of the landlord’s successors in interest, including a foreclosing mortgagee or trustee in bankruptcy.