THE TORT BY THE INTERFERNCE WITH GOODS ACT OF 1977

This wrongful interference with goods was as a result of recommendation from a review committee that various torts relating to intentional interference with goods should be replaced by a single tort of ‘Wrongful interference with chattel’. This Act of 1977 created a new form of tortuous liabilities called wrongful interference with chattel.  Though the common law was that a claim in detinue lay at the suit of a person who had an immediate right to the possession of the goods against another who is in actual possession of them and who upon proper demand failed

or refused to deliver them up without lawful excuse, But now, the oldest of the chattel torts, the writ of detinue developed to provide a remedy for wrongful detention of goods under section 2(1) of the interference with goods act 1977  tersely  provides that “detinue is abolished ‘. The action is now framed as one for wrongful interference with goods.

 The 1977 Act now abolished the tort detinue as a separate tort and merged it with the tort of conversion where it is now known as conversion by detinue or detention. Now the one clear instance of detinue (loss or destruction of goods in breach of duty by a bailee) which did not constitute conversion at common law is converted into a statutory conversion by section 2(2) of the Act. The Act under section 1(a)(b)(c) also introduced a collective description of wrongful interference with goods to cover conversion trespass to goods, negligent and any other torts so far as they result in damage to good or an interest in goods.

This is done to facilitate common treatment of all chattel torts in respect of remedies and procedures. But the Act neither redefines nor replaced the existing substantive rules on trespass, conversion or the residual chattel torts.

      Under the unamended common law, a claimant often succeeded in conversion even though the defendant could show that a third party had a better title than the claimant. As it was said, the defendant could not plead jus tertii .  A most significant procedural reform implemented by the 1977  Act, is a reform of procedure which in effect also amends substantive law is the abolition of the common law rule on jus tertii under section 8(1). The defendant in an action of conversion or other wrongful interference is now entitled to prove that a third party has a better right than the claimant with respect to all or any part of the interest claimed by the claimant. The Act authorized the making of rules of court to implement this change under section 8(2). These rules abolish the former principle that a possessor of goods could recover for the full amount of their value although he was not the owner.

   In relation to goods lost or destroyed at common law there was no voluntary act. section 2 of the 1977 Act which abolished detinue therefore further provides in section 2(2) ‘an action lies in conversion for loss or destruction of goods which a bailee has allowed to happen in breach of his duty to his bailor (that is to say it lies in a case which is not otherwise conversion, but would have been detinue before detinue was abolished.

  Also the Act expanded conversion to include a form of wrongful loss or destruction by default of a bailee under section 2(2) which gave rise to an action for detinue at common law but did not constitute conversion. Also the new provision enables a bailee to dispose of uncollected goods. under sections 1, 2 and 13.

Trespass to goods is expressly included within the definition of a wrongful interference with goods in the tort (interference with goods) Act 1977. Therefore the defense of jus tertii is no longer available and the statutory rules regarding co-ownership also apply as in an appropriate case are all forms of relief provided for by the Act.

  There are however many circumstances where the violation of interest in goods is not protected by trespass, conversion or even the tort of negligent. The action analogous to the old action in the case has proved very fruitful in filling these gaps and what now follows is to be treated as illustrative of this wider right of action and not as exhaustively defining the circumstances in which it may be held available in the future. These torts are forms of wrongful interference with goods so that where relevant the provision of the 1977 Act will apply.

   In conclusion, I humbly submit that the substantive impact of the Act is thus limited. One novel provision does, however allow bailees to dispose of uncollected goods apart from this, the main impact of the 1977 Act is to simplify and rationalize the remedies and procedures relating to chattel tort.

THE THREE OF TORTS OF TRESPASS

  The three torts of trespass; chattels, conversion and detinue protect the possessor of a chattel from wrongful interference therewith. These three form of trespass to chattel are each actionable per se upon commission or occurrence without the plaintiff having to prove damages. For the purpose of exposition, however, each tort must be considered separately.