your argument is a tautology. in order to be illegal, the act of withdrawal has to be theft. In order to be theft, it has to be contrary to the meaning of the c

your argument is a tautology. in order to be illegal, the act of withdrawal has to be theft. In order to be theft, it has to be contrary to the meaning of the contract. Then you circle back to "of course it's contrary to the meaning; it's theft!"