TORT - TRESPASS - CONVERSION


Before we forge ahead lets know the meaning of the word “tort”.
Tort is a civil wrong involving a breach of duty fixed by the law, such duty being owed to persons generally and its breach been redresible primarily by an action for damages. The essential aim of the law of torts is to compensate persons harmed by the wrongful conduct of others, and substantive law of torts consists of the rules and principles which have been developed to determine when the law will and when it will not grant redress for damages suffered. 

The law of interference to goods was traditionally governed by common law principles which recognized a number of actions in tort for injury or interference with goods, which are:  trespass to goods, conversion and detinue, of which the reformed Act created a new form of tortious liability called wrongful interference with goods, which is defined in section 1 of the Act to include conversion, trespass to goods, negligence in so far as it result in damages to goods or to damages to goods.   
Trespass to goods: The tort to chattel is a direct and wrongful interference with a chattel in the possession of the plaintiff, such interference being either intentional or negligent.  Trespass to chattel is actionable per se. It covers the conduct of actual destruction or damaging of goods, through use of goods to simply moving goods from one place to another. For example Kink V Gregory, a deceased persons executor moved rings belonging to the formal from one room to another because he mistakenly but genuinely believed that they were at risk from relelers in the house. The executor was held for trespass to the rings when they were lost. And also in Davies V Lagos City Council, which the defendant council had granted the plaintiff a hackney carriage liecence to operate a taxi cab in the Lagos area.  The plaintiff was well aware that the permit was for his exclusive use and not transferable, but he nonetheless caused it to be transferred to a third party, who operated a tax cab in the purported exercise of their power to revoke the permit seized the plaintiffs taxi and detained it at the L.C.C pound. In action for trespass brought by the plaintiff, Adefarasin J. held that the council was entitled to revoke the plaintiff’s permit for non-compliance with the   regulations governing the use of hackney carriage liecence, but it was not entitled to seize the vehicle or otherwise take possession of it.
INTEREST PROTECTED
a.       One of the interests protected is the plaintiff’s right to retain possession of his chattel.  It is also protected under the tort of conversion.
b.       This tort also protects the plaintiff’s interest in the physical condition of his chattel. Finally, the tort protects the plaintiff’s interest in the chattel against any form of intermeddling.  Direct Act: The Act of trespass must be direct to the chattel. That is that, the touch or intermeddling by the defendant must be direct upon the object or chattel in the possession of the plaintiff.  If the contract with the chattel was an indirect act to cut and carry away the tress on the plaintiffs land or to beat his dog, as in Heyden V Smith and Wright V Ramsot .   It is important to note that the mistake of the defendant as to the ownership of the chattel and his right to touch and carry such a chattel to another place is not materials to this action.
The question of possession 
The plaintiff must be in possession of the chattel at the time of the tort, or have the right to immediate possession and ownership of the chattel is irrelevant except it might help in establishing   the right to immediate possession. For eg in Johnson V Diprose, lord ESH  emphasized that the plaintiff in an action of trespass must  at  the time of trespass have the present  possession of the goods, either actual  or constructive,  or  a legal right to  the immediate possession.
Manner of trespass

It can be carried out in various ways

a.  Taking the chattel away form the plaintiff’s possession like in Davies V Lagos City Council, the court stated that there may be a trespass without the infliction of any material damagers and   also in Kirk V Gregory, where there was removal form where the plaintiff left the chattel without any intention to dispossess.
b.  Causing damages to chattel by making contract with it with ones person or another chattel.
c. Touching of a chattel that could be affected by such touch, such as great works of art, could give the person in possession the right of action in trespass.

THE ISSUE OF INTENT
The defendant must intend to achieve some interference with the plaintiff’s chattel eg. When   X   intends to knock B’s pipes and achieved this without any justification, he is liable in trespass. Where it cannot be established as either intentional or negligent, the conduct will have to be seen as accidental, as in the rule in Leame V Bray, which states that “if the injury be done at the time, or he be the immediate cause of it, though it happens accidentally or by misfortune, yet he is answerable in trespass.

CONVERSION
Conversion can be defined as any willful or intentional dealing with exercise of control, over a chattel, which interferes with the plaintiff’s   possession of such chattel. In conversion, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have had actual possession of the goods at the time of interference but it is sufficient if he had an immediate right to possession. Interference must be willful, intentional and wrongful, in Ashby V Tolhurst, it was held that if the defendant’s conduct is merely negligence, it will not amount to conversion. The acts which constitute conversion are wrongful,  destruction of the goods wrongful disposal of goods and wrongful delivery of the goods. A person who treats goods as if there were his when they are not is liable to be sued, in conversion. This is said to turn on the defendant’s denial of the plaintiff’s title   eg if  I  sale a persons goods without his consent, I should  certainly be liable to him, it would be quite  wrong for me , however,  innocent I was  , to  keep the prince of someone  else’s goods.  In Bryanston Leasing Ltd a possessor who  refuses to hand over the thing to a person entitled to demand it also commits conversion, and other act which  result in the  loss of  a the goods may be  constituted as denial of claimants title, through in some case, the defendant must have knowledge  that he was doing wrong to bring  claim in conversion. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to own such right cannot sue, even if he is owner. The interference must be willful and wrongful. In Hollons V Fowler, Balckburn J. says that  “A warehouseman with goods that have been deposited is guilty of no conversion by keeping them or restoring them to the person who deposited than with his, though that person turns out to have no authority from the true owner
TYPES OF CONVERSION
a. By wrongfully taking the goods – that is taking must accompanied by an intention to exercise temporary or permanent dominion over the goods.
b.  By wrongfully detaining the goods – It constitute conversion only if accompanied by an intention to keep goods from the person entitled to possession of them.
c. By wrongfully destroying goods
d. By wrongfully disposing of the good
e. By wrongfully delivering of the   goods    
TITLE TO SUE
            The plaintiff must be entitled to possession of the good, although he need not have actual possession.

REMEDIES

a.       Recovering of the value of the goods and damages for detention
b.       Return of the goods or recovering of the value of the goods and damages for detention
c.       Return of the goods and damages for detention.
DETINUE
Detinue which has now been abolished could be brought by a bailor against his bailee or by a person entitled to possess a thing against the person in actual possession of it.
Detinue had 2 (two) advantages, it gives rise as against a possession to a right to have the thing back, and it made a bailee liable for carelessly ceasing to possess. The 1977 Act allows a judge to order the   redelivery of the thing in any appropriate case, and in turn the wrongful   failure to look after a thing into an act of conversion.  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 to deliver them up without lawful exercise but now 2 (1) of the 1977 Act   provides tersely that Detinue is abolished. The actions is now framed as one for wrongful interference with goods and all other recommendations made were implemented in the torts
Claims under the wrongful interference with goods    
The claims under wrongful interference with goods are seen in the tort interference with goods Act   1977, which introduced common remedies in any form of wrongful interference with goods.
Section 3 of the acts provides that in proceeding for conversion or any other tort regarding chattel, against a person in possession or control of the goods, the following relief may be given, as far as is appropriate
a.      An order for delivering and for payment of any consequential damages.
b. An order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages.  Or
c.  Damages
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as we have seen above these three (3)  torts are concerned with interference with goods, and for the most part, the same  principles regarding the assessment  of  damages apply  to each. The amendments made by the 1977 Act were all observed and carried out   and also the abolition of detinue under section 2 of the Act and the Acts also provides for remedies in section 3 of the Act
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - Unknown

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE