Conversion can be said to be an intentional dealing with or exercise of control over a chattel which seriously interferes with the plaintiff’s possession or right to possession of such chattel.
Conversion according to SIR JOHN SALMOND in his book the Law of Tort
“A conversion is an act…of willful interference without lawful justification, with any chattel in a matter inconsistent with the right of another, whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it.
Conversion according to S. A SUSU in his book Torts, defined conversion as intentional dealing with goods that is seriously inconsistent with the possession or right to immediate possession of another person. The tort protects the claimant’s interest in the dominion and control of his goods. It does not protect his interest in their physical condition. Interference in conversion must be willful, intentional and wrongful, in the case As’hby v Tolhurst. It was held that if the defendant’s conduct is merely negligent, it will not amount to conversion.
Conversion is similar to trespass in that it primarily protects possession rather than ownership of goods, and there are undoubtedly many acts of interference with goods which will give rise to liability for both torts as was seen in the case of Davies v Lagos City Council.
Conversion includes wrongful taking, wrongful detention and or disposition of the property of another person. thus conversion includes denying a person of the title or possession or use of his chattel. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had intention to deal with the goods. it is enough to prove that the defendant interfered with the goods.
Thus an owner can sue for conversion. Likewise, a person who has mere custody temporary possession or caretaker ship can sue any third party who tries to detain, dispose, steal or otherwise convert such chattel. In North Central Wagon & Finance Co. Ltd v Graham. The defendant hire purchaser sold the sold the car in contravention of the terms of the hire purchase agreement. In the circumstance the court held: that the plaintiff finance company was entitled to terminate the hire purchase agreement, and sue the selling hire purchaser in the tort of conversion or for the recovery of the car. Other judicial case where trespass to conversion has been committed. In the case of City Motor Properties Ltd v Southern Aerial Service. An owner of a chattel was held liable in conversion for dispossessing the plaintiff bailee of it, during the subsistence of the bailment, which was not unilaterally determinable at will by the plaintiff owner.
EXAMPLES OF CONVERSION
Conversion of a chattel, belonging to another person may be committed in many different ways.
ü Taking
ü Using
ü Damaging, or destroying it
ü Detention
ü Consumption.
WHO MAY SUE FOR CONVERSION
The following persons may sue for tot of conversion
I. Owners
II. Bailees
III. Holders of lieu and pledge
IV. Finders
V. Assignees
VI. Trustees
DEFENSES FOR CONVERSION OF A CHATTEL
In an action for conversion of a chattel, the defendant may plead
· Jus tertii
· Subsisting bailment
· Subsisting lieu
· Limitation of time
THE REMEDIES FOR CONVERSION
In a claim for the conversion of a chattel several remedies are available to the plaintiff:
1. Order for delivery, return or specific restitution of the goods
2. Alternative order for payment of the current market value of the chattel
3. Recovery of special and general damages
4. An order for payment of ant consequential damages
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.
Be the first to comment