Tort: Interests in Goods Flashcards
What are the torts affesting interests in goods?
Trespass to goods, Detinue, and Conversion
What is trespass to goods?
Wrongfully and directly interfering with the possession of goods - Carroll J in Farrell v. Minister for Agriculture
What is Detinue?
Wrongful refusal by the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff a chattel after demand was made by the plaintiff to do so.
What is Conversion?
Any act relating to the good of another that constitutes an unjustifiable denial of their title to the goods, or as is sometimes said, wrongful assertion of dominion over the goods.
When is trespass to good actionable?
Like other trespass torts, trespass to goods is actionable per se.
What are the defences to trespass to goods?
Lawful authority, consent, and defence of property. In Jennings v. Quinn [1968] the Supreme Court held the Gardaí could seize goods without a warrant when effecting a lawful arrest.
In what three types of situations does trespass to goods generally arise?
1) relocating goods, 2) damaging goods, 3) removing goods from possession.
Can a trespass to goods arise through a series of consequences? What is the essential characteristic of trespass to goods?
In McDonagh v. West of Ireland Fisheries Limited (unreported High Court 19 December, 1986) it was held no claim for trespass to goods could arise where the damage to the goods was indirect. Direct interference with possession is the essential characteristic
Can a defendant accidentally commit a trespass to goods?
Defendant must have acted intentionally or negligently - ESB v Hastings & Co Ltd[1965] Ir Jur 51 (HC)
What does detinue require the plaintiff to have done?
The plaintiff must have made an effective demand for the return of the goods to the defendant. The failure to then return the goods establishes the defendant’s possession as adverse to the plaintiffs right to the chattel.
What is the status of bailee with regard to detinue?
A bailee who refuses to return a chattel after the expiry of a contract of bailment is not necessarily guilty of detinue, but may be guilty of breach of contract. A demand for return from the bailor is what “triggers” detinue.
What was the ratio decedendi of Cullen, Allen, & Co v. Barclay [1881]?
“a plaintiff could bring his action for breach of contract without any demand, he could not bring an action of detinue until, by a demand of, and a refusal or neglect to return, the goods, the breach of contract was turned into a wrongful detainer”
What are the remedies for Detinue?
1) The return of the chattel and damages for detinue,
2) The value of the chattel and damages for detinue, or
3) Damages for detinue (where the chattel has already been returned).
What are the principles of Conversion?
1) Conversion only happens when the defendant deals with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with the right of the true owner. 2) This need not involve an intention on the part of the defendant to permanently deprive the owner of the goods. 3) It is the intention to do the act that constitutes conversion; it is not necessary that there should be an intention to convert
How does the identity of a chattel affect conversion?
Abuse of possession also arises where a chattel is damaged so that it’s identity is destroyed. If the chattel retains its identity in spite of damage, the defendant will not be guilty of conversion. (though they may be liable in trespass)
What are some coversion cases?
British Wagon Company ltd. v. Shortt [1968], Holland v. Fowler [1875], Shield Life Insurance Co. ltd v. Ulster Bank ltd. [1995]
What are the remedies for conversion?
1) Damages for conversion are assessed at the date that the article was converted by the Defendant.
2) inflation/deflation will be taken into account by the Court in order to restore the Plaintiff to the position he would have been in had the tort not been committed.
3) Section 34(2)(d) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 provides that a Plaintiff who has failed to exercise reasonable care in the protection of her/her own property will be guilty of contributory negligence except to the extent that the Defendant has been unjustly enriched.
