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.