Would it be a crime to take goods in a supermarket and pay by leaving cash to a random employee? Let's say you're in a supermarket on the day before Christmas and there's a huge 20-person line to each register. Assuming you knew exactly how much the goods in your cart are worth, would it be a crime to leave said amount of money to a random employee (e.g. the information desk) and then just proceed to leave? By "crime" I refer to a situation where you can be charged with theft.
In general As Dale M explained, if you give the money to someone who is not obviously authorized by the business to accept money and sell stuff in exchange, you have not entered into a valid sales contract. That means you are taking things without permission. Therefore the shop could sue you for any damage this causes (maybe you took something the shop did not want to sell, or the person at the information desk was not an employee and ran away with the money). However, whether this constitutes a crime such as theft will depend on jurisdictions. Germany In Germany, for example, it would probably not, because by definition a theft requires "intention to take posession in violation of the law" (StGB §242). You could argue that you did not intend to violate the law, because you paid the required amount, and only gave the money to the wrong person by mistake. Of course, I cannot guarantee that will convince the judge... England and Wales Similarly, the law in England and Wales defines "theft" in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; [...] Furthermore, section 2 says: A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— [...] (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or [...] So, similar to the situation in Germany, you could argue in court that you intended to buy the item legally, and believed that the shop would be okay with that.
It will vary by jurisdiction. This is a complicated area of law, but usually an advertisement or a display of goods in a shop is not an "offer" (in the contract law sense of the term), but an invitation to treat (or "invitation to bargain" in the US). The "offer" is the shopper saying "I'd like one of those please" or putting the goods on the band for the till. The "acceptance" is the checkout girl saying "that'll be ..."
"Grand theft, auto" is specific crime in some jurisdictions. It's not a universal legal phrase. Furthermore, it is a slang expression like "Murder One." I doubt any jurisdiction has a crime of "Grand theft, auto." It might be "Grand theft, automobile." "Theft" or "larceny" is a common law crime. "Grand theft" (or "Grand Larceny") is statutory crime that usually imposes a higher penalty for the theft of a higher value item(s). Not all jurisdictions even have "grand theft." The taking of an automobile may be defined as a simple larceny or it may be defined as a separate crime of auto theft. In New Jersey (a model penal code state), automobile theft is just theft with different penalties or the separate crime of joyriding. Penal codes are normally arranged with in taxonomy structure. Typically it would like something like: Property Crimes Theft Grand Theft auto going from general to specific. In New York, there are "Theft crimes" (with robbery and larceny being types of theft).The taking of an automobile is just a larceny. However, over $1,000 in value makes it a grand larceny. The bottom line is "Grand theft, auto" is a slang term that refers to the statutory crime of grand theft where there are specific provisions for the theft of an automobile.
There's a critical error in your argument but no transfer of goods or services will be present. Actually: No, there is a transfer of service made by booking: resources are put aside by the service provider to be available for the booking person once they arrive. That is a service. These resources are not available to be sold otherwise: a room is booked and thus blocked from being rented to someone else, or a seat on the plane is booked and not offered to others, and so on. As long as the booking person arrives, no damage happens. However, if they no-show, there is damage: the resources go to waste unused: the room stays empty, or the plane flies with one less person. And the cancellation/no-show fees that are contractually obligated to make the damaged party whole (to compensate for the wasted resources) are also not paid. Knowingly using a fake credit card number or empty debit card that can't pay the fees and planning not to show up would be clearly fraud. One such paragraph that might be used to hunt down could be 18 USC §1341 - aka &quot;mail fraud&quot; - or much more likely, 18 USC $1343 - wire fraud. The latter is because any fraud on the internet is wire fraud. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud [including a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services], or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
There is a legal concept of de minimis: the idea that some offenses, civil or criminal, are too small to be worth prosecuting. For example, a photograph of a city scene that incidentally captured part of a copyrighted billboard in one corner of the image infringes the copyright on that billboard. But if the copyright holder were to sue, it's virtually certain the suit would be thrown out due to the minimal nature of the infringement. Technically speaking, yes, what you describe is a crime. But any prosecutor who tried to bring charges to that effect is likely to be chewed out by the judge for wasting everyone's time. (Incidentally, assuming the reporter and property owner are US citizens, the crime is failure to cross at a designated crossing point (19 USC 1459, a customs offense) rather than improper entry (8 USC 1325, an immigration offense).)
This is not theft, this is a contract dispute. You gave them money, they promised to do certain things, the contract says what that is. I surmise that they wanted a deposit to cover their costs in further dealing with you (moving is more complicated and costly than buying a loaf of bread), so in walking away from the deal, you've economically damaged them to some amount. The deposit is &quot;liquidated damages&quot;. Your recourse is to sue them for that amount, because... Perhaps you didn't understand why you were giving them this deposit (an act that constitute some level of agreement), but any time you hand over a deposit, there is a circumstance under which you will not get that money back, and you have to understand what that circumstance is.
If you were an adult, the risk would be a lot higher. You can get away with things when you are 13. And since you are not an adult, the purchase contract is voidable so your parents can void your purchase. Don't do this ever again. It's not a "prank". You say you have no money and your parents have no money. The money on that card could be the last bit of money that the card owner had. Worst case someone has become homeless, had a bit of money in his card account, and you took the last of their savings. Does that make you feel bad? It should.
Would a marketplace for trading receipts be legally allowed to operate? Yes, or at least I think so, since it is highly doubtful that any legislation outlaws receipts trading. Unlike other documents, there is no commonplace notion that receipts are secret, non-transferable, or even private. For it to be actionable, the marketplace would have to engage in, or openly promote, practices which are "more unequivocally" illicit. The possibility that some people might pursue receipts for tax fraud, enjoyment of unearned rights, or other illegitimate purposes does not imply that trading of receipts in and of itself is unlawful. For instance, a person might come up with a bizarre --but nonetheless plausible-- hobby of collecting receipts with certain sequences of figures.