Week 4 Torts PDF

Preview

Summary

week 4 summary
...

Description

Week 4 Lecture Trespass to goods, Conversion and Detinue Trespass to goods pertains to three specific torts, Conversion, Detinue and trespass Trespass to goods – the interference is less than major damage or destruction Detinue- action to seek recovery of the goods (to seek possession) Conversion- the defendant has converted the goods for their own personal use (could not or would not have recovered the goods)

Need This for trespass

Sufficient for conversion + detinue

Trespass to goods – Direct act by the D that interferes with the P’s possession of goods Cause of Action requires:  D must intentionally or negligently  Directly interfere with  Goods in the possession of the P  Without lawful justification Types of interference  Damaging P’s goods (Hamps V Darby [1948])  Removing goods from P’s possession  Mere asportation (moving the goods)  Mere touching? (intentional touching without permission could be argued e.g. museum authorities, the only legal avenue to stop people from touching displays)

FaultIntentional act or negligence National Coal V Evans (1951)  Underground electricity cables served  Not trespass because not at fault

Conversion – Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion.    

Wrongful Intentional Exercise of control over goods In a manner that denies the rights of P to possession

Penfolds Wines Ltd Elliot (1946) (Dixon J) “The essence of conversion is a dealing with a chattel in a manner repugnant to the immediate right of possession of the person who has the property… in the chattel.”

Tittle to sue in conversion Possession  Immediate right to possession  Examples: Penfolds Wines Ltd V Elliott (1946) Perpetual Trustees V Perkins (1989)

Fault  Intentional not negligent  Examples: Ashby V Tolhurst (1937) Wilson V New Brighton Panel Beaters (1989) Type of Act  Deprives P of possession, or results in the chattel being unusable  Intention: to deny to owners’ rights, or to assert inconsistent rights Wrongful dealings  Wrongfully destroying or consuming goods  Taking goods and exercising control over them  Obtaining possession lawfully but then transferring it to someone else unlawfully: Glass V Hollander (1935)  Wrongfully detaining goods: Flowfill Packaging V Fytore (1993) Finders  Usual rule: finders acquire good title against all but the rightful owner:

Armony V Delamere (1722)  Complication: What about the rights of the occupier? Parker V British Airways Board (1928) NCA V Flack (1998)

Detinue Is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. Elements:  D possesses goods  P has a right to immediate possession  P demands return of goods  D refuses (or is unable) to return the goods  Advantages: Where you want return of the goods Where conversion not available Tittle to sue immediate right to possession Demand and Refusal  Must be specific demand: Lloyd V Osborne (1899) “you will at once deliver to the plantiff or her agent all sheep with the relevant brand which you unlawfully withheld from her” ( is demand was not sufficient , not specific as to who the agent is or where to deliver the sheep) Refusal: Must be unreasonable and unequivocal: Flowfill Packaging Machines V Fytore (1993) (Id the identity of the owner is uncertain) ...