WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS – DENIAL RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP
INTRODUCTION
When a person wrongfully interferes with the goods of another person it is a tort. Damages can be claimed just like in other instances where injury has been caused.
There is no common law tort for wrongful interference with goods.
However legislation has been developed in order to deal with the acts caused by the wrongful interference with goods:
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, 1977.
Wrongful interference has been defined in this Act.
Under this Act it abolishes Detinue which means the wrongful refusal to deliver goods or property.
In Detinue the person who is the real owner or a person who has the better title has to first demand the property or goods from the person who has it before taking any legal action against him.
This article focuses on the wrongful interference with goods, its definition, consequences of such wrongful interference and the denial right of ownership.
Tort (Interference with Goods) Act, 1977
Under this Act the wrongful interference has been defined as:
- Trespass to goods
- Conversion
- Negligence so far as it results in damage to goods or to an interest in goods.
- Any other tort which results in damage to goods.
TRESPASS TO GOODS
Trespass to goods basically means the interference with goods which is in the possession of another person. Moving, touching, causing any damage or simply by using the property or goods amounts to trespass. If the defendant is aware of the fact that he is interfering with the object then the fact that he did not know he was committing trespass cannot be used as a defense.
Wilson vs. Lombank (1963)1
Wilson bought a car from Lombank, the representatives of lombank had no right to sell the vehicle. Wilson left his car at a garage for repair. The work was completed however the car was left at the garage itself. The defendant was asked to pick up his employer’s car. He arrived and mistakenly took Wilson’s car thinking it to be the employer’s car Wilson sued for damages for trespass.
The court held it to be trespass as he had interfered with the plaintiff’s car and liability was established.
If the trespass was done unintentionally i.e. if the defendant mistakenly interferes with the object then it shall not amount to trespass.
National Coal Board vs. JE Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd, 19512
An electric cable was placed under the land of the county council by the National Coal Board. The Council gave a contract to JE Evans & Co to excavate a trench on the land. They had no knowledge that there was a cable fixed. While excavating the cable was damaged. NCB brought an action of trespass.
The court held the defendants not liable because they had knowledge of the cable and also there was no reason to assume that there would be a cable. The act was held to be involuntary and accidental.
- [1963] 1 WLR 1294.
- [1951] 2 KB 861
Damage to goods/ property
If the trespass is done intentionally and there is a deliberate interference then the damage to the goods or property is not necessary however if it was unintentional or by accident then it is necessary to prove that damage has been caused to the goods/ property.
Possession
In case of trespass of goods it is not necessary to have the ownership of the property or goods mere possession is enough to bring an action against trespass.
However there is an exception to this; the defendant can use the defense of jus tertii (third party rights) which means that another person other than the claimant has a greater right to the property/goods and thus he is the actual or proper claimant. In such a case he can become the joint claimant however this rarely occurs.
Defense
Consent can be used a defense in case of trespass to goods however contributory negligence in case of interference with goods cannot be used as a defense.
CONVERSION
Conversion can be defined as the “willful interference with goods such that the rightful owner is deprived of it.” It is dealing of the goods in such a manner which is inconsistent the rights of the owner. It is also called trover.
Modes of Conversion
- By taking: When a person takes possession of goods without proper authority with the intention of having the sole dominion over the goods it can be termed as conversion by taking. When the goods are taken without the intention of having the temporary or permanent dominion it can be called trespass but not conversion.
The demand to return goods to the rightful owner is not essential because the person who is in possession of the goods (possessor) has a duty to return them to the rightful of owner. The duty of care is on the person who is in possession of the goods.
- By wrongful delivery: When a person without lawful justification delivers the goods to another person and deprives actual person from his goods so as to change the possession will be guilty of conversion.
- By parting with goods: When a person gives another person the right to title of goods which actually belongs to somebody else without any lawful justification then it will amount to conversion. The person in possession of goods and has no title to it can wrongfully dispose of the goods sale, pledge or by any other means. Such an action will amount to conversion because the real owner has been deprived of his rights.
- By wrongful destruction: When a person willfully consumes or destroys the goods of another without lawful justification then it will amount to conversion. A mere damage caused to the goods cannot be considered as conversion. The goods should either be deformed or it cannot be used in the same way as it was normally used.
Richardson vs Atkinson3
The plaintiff had a wine cask from which the defendant drew some out and mixed water with the rest of the wine to make it deficient. The defendant was held liable for conversion as he had not only taken out some quantity but also destroyed the identity of the remaining part.
- 1723 1. Str. 576
- By keeping: When a person who has possession of another person’s goods and refuses to give them back it will amount to conversion because it violates the dominion of plaintiff over it.
Finder’s Rights
According to the law it says that the finder has a title to keep the goods with himself against everyone except under the following situation:
When an object or good is found attached in a particular land then between the finder of the good and the rightful owner of the land, the rightful owner will have a better title over the good.
When an object or good is not attached to the land then between the finder and the rightful owner, the rightful owner will have a better title provided that the owner has to exercise his exclusive control over the land which would indicate that anything found on the land, he shall have control over it.
Defenses in Conversion
Lien
Both in general and special cases the demand and refusal of the goods cannot be considered as evidence in conversion if the person has lien upon the good or chattel.
Right of stoppage in transit:
This defense is used when the sale of goods is involved. According to this a person sells goods in such a way that it causes the original owner to suffer damage by not being able to enjoy the good. The defense used can be such that the defendant is not the final holder of the good but he is only a medium.
Distress
It can be used as a defense when goods are taken under distress or under execution. The law gives more value to the other act committed rather than the negative act of conversion.
Sale in Market overt
Sale of good in market gives a good title to the purchaser and therefore he cannot be sued for conversion if he parts with the goods or refuses to give them in demand.
DENIAL RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP
If the defendant had never been in physical possession of goods but there was denial and repudiation of the rights of the plaintiff then it can be termed as conversion. However this has been overruled by the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act, 1977 which says that a mere denial cannot be termed as conversion.
Under the Act there should have been an interference with goods that was inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiff
Denial of Plaintiff’s right of property
Jus tertii
Here the defendant argues that the goods belonged to him and the plaintiff had no right over it. In such a case jus tertii becomes important in the sense plaintiff was not actually in possession of the property but he only had a right to possess it. This can be used a defense by the defendant to save himself.
If the plaintiff was in possession of the goods then the defendant cannot use the defense f jus tertii.
In order to claim the damages the plaintiff must show that he had rights to the goods and that his right to enjoyment was interfered with. He must show that at the time of defendant’s act :
- He had possession over the goods.
- He had immediate possession even if there was no actual ownership.
So it can be concluded that a person who has mere right of possession of the good on the date of conversion can sue.
CONCLUSION
This article deals with the actions that relate to the wrongful interference with goods, the different ways in which a person can wrongfully interfere, the remedies available to the plaintiff and also the defenses available to the defendant. This article mainly focuses on Trespass and Conversion and the denial rights of ownership in such cases. It can be seen that trespass is done to the actual possessor while conversion is a wrong which is entitled to the immediate possession. Conversion can be seen as an economic tort which affects the society as whole and it is important to adjust to these torts since it has become common.
