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.