Intent to avoid payment is presumed if the actor:

• A. Paid the amount in full after notice
• B. Returned property before notice
• C. Left without paying
• D. Sent a partial payment within 10 days

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that leaving without paying is strong circumstantial evidence of the intent to avoid payment. When someone takes property or receives a service and then departs without settling the bill, it suggests a purpose to deprive the owner of payment, which the law treats as evidence of fraudulent intent.

Why this fits best: paying the amount after notice shows willingness to satisfy the debt, so there’s no inference of evading payment. Returning the property before notice indicates no intent to deprive at all. Sending a partial payment within a set period demonstrates an attempt to pay, not an intention to avoid payment. Therefore, leaving without paying most clearly signals the intended avoidance of payment.