Cases - torts

Question 1

Wilson v New Brighton Panel Beaters

Answer 1

Facts:
Car parked in Wilson’s home, Walters asks the delivery of car to his house and pays $40
Issue:
Was it trespass
Decision:
The requirements for trespass were met
reasoning:
1. the plaintiff in possession
2. intentional act by defendant
3. intentional act was unlawful interference
ratio:
Scope of liability - intentional act regardless of blameworthness amounts to trespass (no need to prove moral blameworthiness)
- done for policy reason that we want to shift the loss from property loser

Question 2

Penfolds Wines v Elliot

Answer 2

Facts:
Penfold sold branded wine bottles and retained ownership of them. Ellopt obtains bottle and uses them to fill with own wine.
Issue:
Is the action trespass
Decision:
No
Reasoning
to sue in trespass you must have possession

Question 3

Hollins v Fowler

Answer 3

Facts:
Fowler owned cotton bales, Bayley acted as a fake agent for Seddon and aquired possession sold them through the agent Hollins to Micholls
Issue:
Did Hollins convert the bales
Decision:
yes
Reasoning:
Bayley committed conversion by sale and delivery and Michols for making the bales into yarn (however no legal action taken)
Hollins lost because it does not have to be a blameworthy action to be conversion

Question 4

Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways

Answer 4

facts:
KAC had 10 aeroplanes taken by the Iraqi government. Res 369 was passed by Iraqi government giving planes to IAC, they then took possession of the planes. KAC paid 20 million to ensure planes were moved to iran for safe keeping
Issue
Did the IAC convert the planes?
Decision:
Yes
Reasoning:
Iraq could only pass on bare possession to IAC (nemo dat), res 369 contrary to international law so KAC retained right to possession. IAC had unauthorised possession and re-registered, reppainted and used the planes as their own.

Question 5

McKeown v Cavalier Yachts

Answer 5

Facts:
Mr McKeown, entered into an agreement with Cavalier Yachts that he would be
provided with a Cavalier 30 yacht. Mr McKeown would trade in his existing yacht, “GAC”, and pay $2000 in cash. Calvier sold to Spartec. The hull made for Mr McKeown was $1,777. Mr McKeown and Spartech claim to own Cavalier. Spartech argued that the value of additions disproportinate to value of hull so assecntion should be other way around.
Issues:
Does McKeown own and have the R2IP?
Did the additions ascend to the hull?
Decision:
McKeown owns and has R2IP and the additions did assend
Reasoning:
1. Apply acceession as the removal would destroy the chattel
2. McKeown owns the hull and all additions made to the hull
3. As additions were gradual accession in preference of McKeown
4. Spartec wasn’t wrongdoer but also not innocent improver - compensation?!