THE PREVAILING INTERPRETATION OF THE ENGLISH THEFT ACT IS THAT THEFT CAN BE COMMITTED THROUGH VARIOUS ACTS THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL. UNDER THIS REASONING, IF A PERSON APPROPRIATES PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER UNDER THE IMPULSE OF A DISHONEST STATE OF MIND, THEN A THEFT HAS BEEN COMMITTED, EVEN IF THE OWNER CONSENTS TO GIVING UP THE PROPERTY AND THE TAKING IS LAWFUL IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. THE PREVAILING OPINION IS UNSOUND, BECAUSE IT OPENS UP ALL MANNER OF THEFT CHARGES BASED ON JUDGMENTS ABOUT A DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND, EVEN THOUGH NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF THEFT EXISTS. THE CRIME OF THEFT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PROPOSITIONS THAT THEFT CANNOT BE COMMITTED BY A PERSON WHO HAS OR OBTAINS AN INDEFEASIBLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT MORAL DISHONESTY MAY BE PRESENT IN THE TRANSACTION; AND THAT THEFT CANNOT BE COMMITTED BY AN ACT THAT IS NOT WRONGFUL (UNDER THE GENERAL LAW) AGAINST THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PROPERTY BELONGS. MEANS OF BRINGING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE THEFT ACT BACK INTO TOUCH WITH OBJECTIVE DEEDS OF MISAPPROPRIATION INCLUDE INTERPRETING THE THEFT ACT SO THAT MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY MUST ACTUALLY BE PRESENT BEFORE THE CRIME OF THEFT CAN BE HELD TO BE CONSUMMATED, AND DETERMINING THAT A PERSON ACTS HONESTLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACT IF WHAT IS DONE IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND THERE IS NO LAWFUL REQUIREMENT TO MAKE RESTITUTION IN QUASI-CONTRACT OR UPON AVOIDANCE OF A TRANSACTION. (RCB)