Conversion as a purely civil injustice is different from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act incompatible with someone else`s rights, and theft will also be a transformation. But not all conversions are thefts, because conversion does not require an element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. When someone claims unjust enrichment, the person who owns someone else can always make a change of position in defense to say that they unknowingly used the assets they transferred. For conversion, there must always be an element of voluntary treatment of someone else`s property that is incompatible with their rights. CONVERSION. Crimes. the filming or unlawful use of someone else`s personal belongings for use by the client or any person other than the owner; or the unlawful destruction or alteration of their nature. Bull. N. p.
44; 6. Fair 20; 14 Select. 356; 3 Brod. & Bing. 2; Cro. Eliz. 219 12 Mod 519; 5 Fair 104; 6 Shepl. 382; History, Bailm.
articles 188, 269 and 306; 6. Fair 422; 2 B. & S. 488; 3 B. & Ald. 702; 11 M. & W. 363; 8 Mockery. 237; 4 Mockery. 24. 2. If one party wrongly removes or takes back the right to property belonging to another, this will usually be sufficient proof of conversion, but if the initial withdrawal was legal, as if the party had found the goods, and the detention is only illegal, it is absolutely necessary to demand a claim for the goods, and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion is complete.
1 chap. Pr. 566; 2 hours. 47 e, Note 1 chap. Pl. 179; Ferry. From. Trover, B 1 Com. Dig. 439; 3 Com. Dig. 142; 1 VIN.
From. 236; Jew 174, n.; 2 East, R. 405; 6 East, R. 540; 4 Mockery. 799 5 Barn. & Cr. 146; S. C.
11 Eng. C. L. Rep. 185; 3 Bl. Com. 152; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3522, et seq. The refusal of a servant to deliver the goods entrusted to him by his master is not proof of conversion by his master. 5 hills, 455.
3. The unlawful expropriation of property is in itself a conversion.15 John Section 431 and any interference with or exercise of dominion over it, the violation of the owner`s rule or the nature of bail constitute proof of conversion. 1 Nott & McCord, R. 592; 2 Mass. R. 398; 1 Har. and John. 519; 7 John R. 254; 10 John R. 172 14 John.
R. 128; Cro. Eliz. 219; 2. Johannes Cas. 411. Empty Trover. The rules of evidence in a convertible action are no different from any other tort or misdemeanour. The onus is on the applicant to substantiate the case. The following areas are usually necessary to be established:[193] The defenses that are normally advanced for conversion are: Damages are the main remedy for conversion offense. Taylor and Owen JJ.
noted in Butler v. Egg Pulp Marketing Board (1966) that “the general principle that damages are judged, whether in contract or tort actions. is that the injured party should receive compensation in a sum which, to the extent that the money can do so, puts it in the same situation as it would have been. [had] the offence. not promised. This principle applies both to acts of conversion and to other reprehensible injustices. Conversion, which constitutes an unlawful act, cannot result from the exercise of a right. These acts include the right to enforce a court decision or to challenge rights arising from a contract. [98] [99] The general rule is that there is no conversion until an act is performed that constitutes a denial or violation of the plaintiff`s dominion or rights over the property. In order to establish a conversion of movable property, there must be an unauthorized assumption of ownership or ownership.
The act must have the essence of a crime. [100] [101] [102] The exercise of ownership of property can take various forms. All that is needed is for the defendant to exercise control over the property in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff`s right of ownership. [102] The essence of a conversion is not the acquisition of property by the offender, but the unlawful deprivation of someone else`s property, which the owner may own. [103] In order to maintain an action in conversion, the applicant must have an interest in the converted property. He must recover from the strength of his own title, regardless of the weakness of his opponent. It is necessary that the applicant be the owner of the property allegedly converted or that he is entitled to own or possess at the time of the alleged conversion. An absolute, unqualified title is sufficient, but not necessary. A simple right of ownership is generally considered to be a sufficient interest to support an act. [143] [144] Extraction does not need to be malicious or even well-informed.
Thus, one can make a conversion without being aware of the owner`s claim – although the owner sometimes has to terminate the property (if a buyer might believe that the item has been abandoned). However, if the owner`s misconception that the object is not his own causes an illegal removal, this removal is not a conversion. The distinction between “movable property” (which is in no way related to immovable property as such or necessary for its enjoyment) and “immovable property” (such as buildings and often including spare parts or even potentially, but not normally tools or mobile equipment or systems) derives from the principle of lex situs, according to which the law applicable to immovable property consists of: that the property is located, regardless of where a will is tried or where a contract is concluded or performed. A distinction is made between monetary claims to land and land itself, often with different restrictions. However, these distinctions determine jurisdiction and do not define how the problem of conversion or ownership can be solved. By the offense of conversion, the offender is liable to the owner for the entire value of the item plus any special damage resulting from the conversion. This liability does not depend on whether the owner is liable to the owner for the loss of the item. Although the normal measure of compensation for conversion is only the market value of the property at the time of conversion, as well as reasonable compensation for the time and money properly spent to track the property, damage caused by emotional stress is allowed even in extreme circumstances. Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn., 114 Cal. App.
4th 208 (Cal. App.3d Dist. 2003). See our article on criminal acts. There are cases in which the defendant does not clearly appropriate the property for his own use and in which the question of whether there is conversion therefore depends on the express or implied intention of the defendant. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] A thief, intruder or bail officer may be guilty of conversion because the application can be granted, whether or not the property was lawfully acquired from the outset. For example, a dry cleaner who accidentally delivers a suit to the wrong customer rebuilt it. Moving a person`s property without their permission can be a transformation if the inconvenience is significant: for example, having someone tow the car to take the parking lot. Unauthorized use is a conversion – for example, a mechanic who borrows a sports car without repair permission. Abuse of property can also be a transformation. If a neighbor lends his hedge trimmer to a friend, it is a transformation for the friend to use the hedge trimmer to cut down a tree. The default average in a Detinue action is an order that returns the property.
The standard remedy in an trespassing action is a judgment on an amount equal to the value of the loss of use of the property. Compensation for trespassing is based on the damage suffered by the claimant and not on the value of the movable property. Many actions can be both a conversion and an intrusion. In these cases, a claimant may have to decide which claim to make based on the damages they wish to recover. This is the difference between charging a rental fee and a total sale to a defendant. Conversion has been described as a fascinating crime,[8] although it has largely escaped the attention of legal writers. Literature is often confused with that of the Trovers. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Other sources define transformation as an autonomous act of wrongful supremacy over the personal property of others by denying or incompatible with their title or rights, or by derogating, excluding or disrespecting such title or rights without the consent of the owner and without legal justification.
[17] [18] [19] [20] Today, the word transformation still applies to the unlawful removal or use of another person`s property. The nature of the property that can be converted is determined by the initial nature of the means. It must be personal property, as real estate cannot be lost and then found. It must be tangible, such as money, an animal, furniture, tools or receipts. Crops or wood can undergo transformation after soil separation. Rights on paper – such as a life insurance policy, a share certificate or a promissory note – can be converted by a person who owns the paper. There is a difference between trover and conversion. Trover solved the old procedural problem of gambling the law, which had evolved as a form of permissible perjury, making destiny unattractive to an honest plaintiff suing a dishonest defendant. Gambling in law has allowed for the testimony of many witnesses who may have nothing to do with the actual legal dispute. In that sense, it wasn`t much different from Champerty and the interview. Since Trover circumvented these old problems, efforts have been made to extend them to many different forms.
