Interference w goods Part 1 - Paan mistakenly took Isadora\'s luggage at the airport PDF

Preview

Summary

1. At the airport, Paan mistakenly took Isadora’s luggage
2. A person who receives goods involuntarily may be held liable for
conversion
3. An exception to a bona fide purchaser...

Description

ULT2612: Law of Torts I Ms. Julia Farhana binti Rosemadi Interference with Goods – Part I

1. At the airport, Paan mistakenly took Isadora’s luggage, thinking it was his. Isadora frantically searched for her luggage and found her luggage on Paan trolley. Discuss whether Isadora may bring a claim against Paan.

The issue is whether Isadora can take legal action against Paan for interference with. Trespass to goods is defined as a wrongful and direct interference with goods that are in the possession of another. Trespass to goods includes using, removing, touching or destroying another’s goods. The first element of interference with goods is mental state of the defendant. It must be proven that the defendant had intended to deal with the goods. In Wilson v Lombank, the court held that since the defendant had the intention to take the car, trespass to goods was established. Contrast, in the case of National Coal Board v Evans it was held no trespass since the act was accidental and not intention. The fact that he had no knowledge, need to apply in the case that he dont know the bag was in his trolley not that for the owner of the bag. In this case he didn’t know the bag wasn’t his, so not applicable. In applying back to the situation, it is clear that Paan did have the intention to take away Isadora’s luggage with him although he thought that the luggage was his. According to the cases, although Paan accidentally took Isadora’s luggage, he took it intentionally, thus there is trespass. Second element is interference. It is the direct act of Defendant and contact with the Plaintiff’s goods. In other words, there is physical interference and voluntarily done by the Defendant. In Kirk v Gregory, the D had moved rings belonging to a deceased to another room without prior consent and it was held that trespass was established as it was direct and voluntary. In applying back to the situation, Paan had direct interference to Isadora’s luggage as he took and kept it on his trolley. According to the case, Paan however had took away Isadora’s luggage with him without Isadora’s consent which is direct and voluntarily, thus his act may amount to trespass with Isadora’s luggage. In conclusion, Isadora cannot take legal action against Paan for interference with goods although Paan had direct interference with her luggage because it was not intentionally and merely a mistake. Paan may not have taken Isadora’s luggage if he had the knowledge earlier. Whether Isadora had possession in fact- Simple one bcs the fact is not clear in the question.

2. Explain whether a person who receives goods involuntarily may be held liable for conversion. Support your answer with relevant cases. conversion can be defined as dealing with goods in a manner inconsistent with the true owner or person entitled to possession. There are three elements to be prove, namely the mental state of the defendant, interference or inconsistent dealing, and the interference or inconsistent dealing must amount to a denial or a deprivation ofthe owner’s right to have possession

The general rule established in the case of Ingram v Little is that when a person receives good voluntarily, he commits conversion however innocent. *Explain different btwn taking and abusing* if a person receives goods voluntarily when in fact the goods belong to a third party who does not consent to the handling of the goods, the party who receives them may be liable in conversion. In JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd & Ors, it was held that as a general rule a person who is not the owner and who conveys the goods in question to another without the consent or authority of the owner commits conversion and the person to whom the goods are conveyed obtains no better title to them and may also be liable in conversion. (NOT REALLY NEEDED) While in the case of Lethbridge v Philips, it laid down a general rule where a person receive goods involuntarily, the general rule is that he does not commit conversion by virtue of that involuntary reception. He need not do more than what would be reasonably necessary to ensure the safekeeping of those goods. Once he has been proven to have done what was necessary then even if the object is lost, he will not be liable. In this case, the plaintiff, a famous artist, lent a painting to a third party. The third party, without the defendant’s consent and previous knowledge, brought the painting to the defendant’s house and left it there. The defendant placed the painting near a stove and the painting was damaged. The court held that the defendant was not liable based on the principle laid down above. In the case of Howard v Harris, it was held that when a person received goods involuntarily and is subsequently negligent will also not be held liable for any damage to the goods. In the case, the plaintiff sent a manuscript to the defendant producer who did not request for it, the court found the defendant was not liable when the producer subsequently lost the manuscript as he did not intent to request for the goods. In Elvin & Powell Ltd v Plummer Roddis Ltd, the gist of this case is that a person who receives goods involuntarily and who takes reasonable steps to return the goods, would not be liable if the goods are damaged. In this case, X, a con-man, instructed the plaintiff’s company to deliver coats to the defendant, who did not order them. X then sent a false telegram to the defendant, stating that there had been a mistake and that someone would be sent over to collect the coats. The telegram was supposedly sent by the plaintiff. A friend of X went to collect the coats and the defendant returned all the goods, believing the man to be an agent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence and conversion. The court held that there was no negligence or conversion. By returning the coat to X’s friend, the defendant had done what was reasonable in the circumstances.

In Contrast, if the defendant does more than what he ought to do, he may incur liability, as in the case of Hiort v Bott. In this case, the plaintiff, under a mistake, had send an invoice stated that the defendant who in fact did not request for the barley. The invoice stated that the defendant had brought the barley through a broker, X. A delivery order was also sent to the defendant. X then informed the defendant about the mistake. X requested the defendant to sign the delivery order, which the defendant did. X took possession of the barley and sold it to someone else. In an action for conversion against the defendant, the court found the defendant liable, as he should have returned everything, including the delivery order to X without signing it. By signing it, he had done more than what was required in the circumstances

Conclusion

3. An exception is to a bona fide purchaser, who will acquire title from a person who does not have any title over the goods. If the goods were bought in good faith, the true owner will lose his right and title over the good sand cannot sue the bona fide purchaser for the tort of conversion. Nemo dat rule *important*- exception of bona fide purchaser, def of bona fide In the case of Hollins v Fowler, this case laid down a principle that any person who obtains possession of goods of another, who in turn has been fraudulently deprived of them, and subsequently disposes of them, whether for his benefit or otherwise, is guilty of a conversion. For example, if the defendant himself was directly involved in the business negotiation, and he then disposes of the goods to a third party, as in the instant case, he will be liable. However, if someone else had been directly involved in the business transaction and the defendant is merely an agent or representative who delivers the goods in question, he has not committed any conversion. The plaintiff in Hollins v Fowler could not take any action against the purchaser as he was a bona fide purchaser . An exception is to a bona fide purchaser, who will acquire title from a person who does not have any title over the goods. If the goods were bought in good faith, the true owner will lose his right and title over the good sand cannot sue the bona fide purchaser for the tort of conversion. In Contrast, Che Din Mohamed Hashim v Teoh Ong Thor and Chew Chan Seng – not bona fide purchaser...