According to Nozick's principles, the scenario where Percival takes money from his sleeping father's wallet without his consent does not meet the notion of just acquisition.
Percival asks his friend Thomas for a loan. Thomas gives Percival the money, knowing that he will never get his money back, because he knows that he can count on Percival to tutor him in chemistry. - This scenario involves a voluntary exchange between Percival and Thomas, where both parties agree to the terms. According to Nozick, voluntary transactions that result from just acquisition or transfer are permissible. Therefore, this scenario may meet Nozick's notion of justice.
Percival takes money from his sleeping father's wallet to pay for the concert ticket. - This scenario involves taking property without the owner's consent, and it does not adhere to the principles of just acquisition. Nozick's theory would likely find this action unjust.
Percival goes into his savings in order to obtain the funds for the ticket. - If Percival earned or acquired the savings justly, then using his own savings to purchase the ticket aligns with Nozick's principles of justice. Individuals are entitled to the fruits of their labor and justly acquired holdings.
Percival, who knows that he does not have money for the concert, talks the concert promoter into letting him work as an usher at the performance hall for free. He feels that doing this is better than not being able to see his favorite band perform. - This scenario involves a voluntary agreement between Percival and the concert promoter. If both parties willingly agree to the terms, and Percival is not coerced into the arrangement, it may be considered a just exchange, even though no money changes hands.
The scenario that does not meet Nozick's notion of just acquisition and exchange is the second one, where Percival takes money from his sleeping father's wallet without his father's consent. This action does not adhere to the principles of just acquisition.