| content |
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (July 2008) |
In law, conversion is an intentional tort to personal property (same as chattel), where defendant's unjustified willful interference with the chattel deprives plaintiff of possession of such chattel. Plaintiff must have actual possession or an immediate right to possession at the time of the wrong. Absolute ownership is not necessary to establish standing to bring action. Interference in conversion means the exercise of dominion over another's chattel. Defendant must not have legal justification for such interference, and need only have intent to perform the act constituting interference. Intent to dispossess plaintiff of the chattel is not a required element of the claim. In other words, intentional removal of another's chattel under the mistaken belief that it belongs to the actor does not relieve actor of liability under conversion.
Both tangible items and intangible property can be the subject of a claim for conversion. When the domain name sex.com was wrongfully transferred to a con man, a claim for conversion was held to be available against the domain name registrar (Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Stealing something from someone else is one form of conversion. However, conversion is not limited to theft: conversion can also be accomplished by moving, transferring, discarding, hiding, vandalizing, or destroying another person's chattel. Merely using another person's chattel can be grounds for conversion in certain cases.
Remedy for conversion is usually in the form of damages equal to the fair market value of the chattel at the time of conversion. The converter can offer to return possession of the chattel to the complainant, but the complainant is not obligated to accept. If the complainant wants the chattel returned without any additional monetary damages, they can claim a related tort, detinue.
Contents |
Conversion and other offenses
- See also: Criminal conversion
Conversion is an interference with another's ownership of property. It is a general intent tort, not a specific intent tort. That means that the intent to take or otherwise deal with the property is enough to support the claim, and it doesn't matter whether the defendant knew that the act would constitute interference with the property of another. Therefore, the defendant's innocent reasons for the act cannot be used as an excuse. It does not matter if the defendant made a mistake. The standard remedy for conversion is a judgment for damages in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property. Punitive damages are also possible, because conversion is an intentional tort.
The standard remedy in a detinue action is an order that the property be returned. The standard remedy in an action for trespass to chattels is a judgment for an amount equal to the value of loss of use of the property. Damages from a trespass claim are based on the harm caused to the plaintiff, rather than the value of the chattel. Many actions can constitute both conversion and trespass. In these cases, a plaintiff must eventually choose which claim to press based on what damages they seek to recover. It is the difference between forcing a rental fee and a total sale upon a defendant.
Recovery of Chattels
One may use force in order to recover a chattel only if the wrongdoer is either in the process of taking the chattel or the owner of the chattel is in "hot pursuit" of the chattel. This is because a victim of conversion should use the legal remedies available as opposed to "self-help" or violence. Deadly force may never be used in the recovery of chattels.
History and 1911
- This material is extracted from Britannica's 1911 edition; please integrate in text
3. In English law, conversion is the unauthorized exercise of dominion by one person over the property (other than money or chattels real) of another, in a manner inconsistent with his rights of possession, or the unauthorized assumption by another of the powers of the true owner of goods. The history and exact definition of this form of actionable wrong have occupied the attention of many learned writers, and the incidents of actions to assert the rights of the true owner form a considerable part of treatises on the rules and forms of civil pleading. There are many ways in which the wrong may be committed. In some cases the exercise of the dominion may amount to an act of trespass or to a crime, e.g. where the taking amounts to larceny, or fraudulent appropriation by a bailee or agent entrusted with the property of another (Larceny Acts of 1861 and 1901). But in such cases, except where money is taken, the civil remedy of the owner is by action for conversion or detention of the property, subject in the case of larceny to the rule that criminal prosecution should precede restitution by the taker. The remedy in use in these cases used to be by what was called an action on the case for trover and conversion, the plaintiff putting aside all suggestions of trespass and of crime, and resting his case on the fiction that the defendant had found and used goods not his own. The fictitious averment of loss was abolished in 1852, and under the present procedure, in which the old forms of action are not in use, the remedy is by a claim (still usually called conversion) for wrongfully depriving the true owner of personal property of its use by some specified act inconsistent with his dominion over it, usually by dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights. Originally, the action of trover and conversion was limited to goods and chattels, but it is now accepted as applying to valuable securities, such as cheques and bills of exchange.
The gist of the action is in the unauthorized dealing, for however short a time and for however limited a purpose, with the personal property of another. Even refusal to deliver up to the owner is sufficient to prove conversion, though it is often made the ground of an action for detinue, if the plaintiff desires to have the property returned in specie. The knowledge, motive or good faith of the person wrongfully dealing with the property of another is for civil purposes immaterial, and the action is often brought to try the title of two claimants to the same goods; e.g. where a person who has innocently bought or taken in pledge goods stolen or illegally procured resists the claim of the original owner for the return of the goods. A warehouseman may render himself liable to the owner of goods deposited with him, through delivering the goods to a third person on a forged authority or without authority, or by issuing a warehouse receipt representing the goods to be in his possession or control when they have ceased to be so.
The exact measure of compensation due to a plaintiff whose goods have been wrongfully converted may be merely nominal if the wrong is technical and the defendant can return the goods; it may be limited to the actual damage where the goods can be returned, but the wrong is substantial; but in ordinary cases it is the full value to the owner of the goods of which he has been deprived.
Fraudulent conversion by any person to his own use (or that of persons other than the owner) of property entrusted to him is a crime in the case of custodians of property, factors, trustees under express trusts in writing (Larceny Act, 1861, ss. 77-85; Larceny Act, 1901).
The law of Ireland, of most British possessions, and of the United States, follows that of England as to the civil or criminal remedies for conversion.
The term "conversion" is also used inEnglishlawwithreference to the rule of courts of equity which, in certain cases (following the maxim of treating as done what ought to have been done), treats as converted into personalty land which has been directed so to be converted by a will, contract or settlement, or as converted into land personalty which has been by such instrument directed to be applied for purchase of realty. The rule is also applied where a vendor of land dies between the making of the contract of sale and its completion by conveyance of the land. The importance of the rule lies in the different destination of realty and personalty under the laws relating to inheritance and succession.
References
- Bullen and Leake, Precedents of Pleading (3rd ed., 1868, 6th ed. by Dodd and Chitty, 1905)
- F. Pollock, on Torts (7th ed., 1904)
- Clerk and Lindsell, on Torts (3rd ed., 1904)
- Lewin, on Trusts (I ith ed., 1904)
- Jarman, on Wills (5th ed., 1893)
- Dart, Vendors and Purchasers (1 ith ed., p. 301). (W. F. C.)
See also
