Definition of Conversion

Conversion is an intentional tort that protects a person's rights in movable property (goods or chattels). It is distinct from trespass to goods, which protects possession from direct interference. Conversion, on the other hand, protects the owner's right to dominion or control over their goods. It occurs when a person deals with goods in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the owner or person entitled to possession.

Essentially, conversion is the unauthorised assumption of the powers of the true owner by a person who is not the owner, dealing with the goods as if they were their own.

Wrongful Interference with the Owner's Possession or Dominion Over Goods

The essence of conversion is a serious interference with the rights of the owner or the person entitled to possession of goods, to the extent that it amounts to a denial or repudiation of their title or right. It is not merely temporary interference or minor damage (which might be trespass to goods), but an act that challenges or overrides the owner's fundamental rights over the goods.

The interference is considered "wrongful" because it is done without the consent of the person whose rights are violated and without lawful justification.

Key Idea: Denial of Plaintiff's Rights

The defendant's act must be such that it implies an assertion of title or a right to deal with the goods that is inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. The defendant treats the goods as if they were theirs or as if they had the right to dispose of them.

Unlike trespass to goods, which is actionable per se, historically there was debate, but it is now generally accepted that conversion requires a dealing that is serious enough to deny the owner's rights. While proof of actual damage is not strictly necessary to make the tort actionable, the remedy (typically the full value of the goods) reflects the serious nature of the interference.

The focus is on the defendant's dealing with the goods and its impact on the plaintiff's rights, rather than necessarily on damage to the goods themselves (though damage often results).

Acts Constituting Conversion

Conversion can be committed in various ways. Any unauthorised dealing with goods that amounts to an exercise of dominion inconsistent with the rights of the person entitled to possession can be an act of conversion.

Common Acts of Conversion:

1. Wrongful Taking (Taking Out of Possession):

This occurs when the defendant takes the goods out of the plaintiff's possession without lawful justification, intending to exercise some right inconsistent with the plaintiff's ownership. This is also often a trespass to goods, but if the taking is done with the intention of keeping or exercising full rights over the goods, it becomes conversion.

• Example: Stealing goods, or wrongfully seizing goods under a mistaken claim of right.

2. Wrongfully Parting With Goods (Disposing of Goods):

This is a very common form of conversion. It occurs when the defendant transfers the possession of the goods to a third party who then deals with them in a way inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. This can happen through a sale, gift, pledge, or any other form of delivery that is not authorised.

• Example: A person who is holding goods for the owner sells them to a third party without authority. Both the seller and potentially the buyer (if they later refuse to return the goods) can be liable for conversion.

3. Wrongful Detention or Refusal to Deliver:

This occurs when the defendant is in possession of the plaintiff's goods (lawfully or unlawfully) and refuses to return them upon a lawful demand by the person entitled to possession. The refusal must be unjustified and amount to a denial of the plaintiff's rights.

• Example: You lend your bicycle to a friend. When you ask for it back, the friend refuses to return it, claiming it now belongs to them or simply stating they won't give it back. This refusal, denying your right to the bicycle, constitutes conversion.
• A reasonable request and reasonable time for compliance are usually necessary before refusal constitutes conversion, unless the refusal amounts to an outright denial of title.

4. Wrongful Use:

Using someone's goods in a manner that is seriously inconsistent with the owner's rights or instructions can amount to conversion. This goes beyond mere temporary use which might be trespass.

• Example: Hiring a car for personal use but then using it as a taxi without permission, or using goods pledged as security in a way not permitted by the agreement.

5. Wrongful Alteration or Destruction:

Any act that alters the identity or nature of the goods, or destroys them, without the owner's consent is conversion, as it fundamentally interferes with the owner's rights.

• Example: Grinding wheat into flour, melting down a piece of jewellery, or destroying a painting belonging to another person.

Table: Comparison of Trespass to Goods and Conversion

It is possible for a single act to be both a trespass to goods and a conversion (e.g., wrongfully taking goods with the intention to keep them). In such cases, the plaintiff can usually choose which tort to sue under, and conversion is often preferred due to the remedy of recovering the full value of the goods.

Essentials of Conversion

To succeed in a claim for Conversion, the plaintiff must prove the following essential elements:

1. Plaintiff's Possession or Right to Immediate Possession:

Unlike trespass to goods which primarily protects actual possession, Conversion protects the plaintiff's right to dominion over the goods. To sue for conversion, the plaintiff must prove that at the time of the defendant's wrongful act, they either had:

• Actual Possession: Physical control over the goods.
• Constructive Possession: Legal control over the goods, even if someone else (like an agent) holds them on their behalf.
• Immediate Right to Possession: Even if not in actual possession, the plaintiff must have a right to take possession of the goods immediately. For example, an owner who has hired out goods cannot sue the hirer for conversion during the hiring period unless the hirer's act terminates the hiring agreement (e.g., by selling the goods). But the owner could sue a third party who converts the goods if the conversion ends the hirer's right to possession.

A person with only future interest or a mere contractual right to receive goods at a later date cannot generally sue for conversion. The plaintiff must have a proprietary interest in the goods and a right to immediate possession at the time of the defendant's act.

2. Defendant's Intentional Wrongful Act:

The defendant's act of dealing with the goods must be intentional. This doesn't mean the defendant intended to violate the plaintiff's rights or knew that the goods belonged to someone else. It means the defendant intended to perform the physical act that constitutes the interference (e.g., intended to take the goods, intended to sell the goods, intended to refuse delivery).

Meaning of Intentional Wrongful Act:

• The defendant's act of dealing with the goods must be voluntary.
• The dealing must be inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights.
• Mistake is Generally No Defence: As with other intentional torts, an honest and reasonable mistake about the ownership of the goods or the right to deal with them is generally no defence to conversion.

  Example. Mr. Kapoor purchases a second-hand watch from a seller, genuinely believing the seller is the rightful owner.

  The seller did not have good title, and the watch was actually stolen property belonging to Mr. Khanna.

  Mr. Kapoor later refuses to return the watch to Mr. Khanna upon demand, asserting his (mistaken) belief in his ownership.

  Analysis:

  Mr. Kapoor's purchase and subsequent assertion of ownership (by refusing to return upon demand) constitute a dealing with the watch that is inconsistent with Mr. Khanna's rights. Even though Mr. Kapoor genuinely believed he was the owner (mistake of fact), this is generally no defence to conversion. Mr. Kapoor is likely liable to Mr. Khanna for conversion.

• However, the act must be more than merely passive or accidental. For example, if goods are left on your property without your knowledge, and you do nothing, you are not necessarily liable for conversion unless you later actively deal with them or wrongfully refuse to return them upon demand.

3. Interference with the Plaintiff's Dominion:

The defendant's act must amount to an exercise of dominion over the goods, or a dealing with the goods, that is inconsistent with and constitutes a denial of the plaintiff's title or right to possession. As seen in the list of acts constituting conversion, this involves actions that are serious enough to effectively deprive the plaintiff of their rights over the goods, at least temporarily, such that the law deems it appropriate for the defendant to acquire the goods (by paying their full value in damages).

The primary remedy for conversion is damages, typically the full market value of the goods at the time of the conversion. In some cases, the court may also order specific restitution, compelling the defendant to return the goods to the plaintiff.

Definition of Detinue

Detinue is an older tort that historically provided a remedy for the wrongful detention of goods. It occurs when a person who is in possession of goods belonging to another wrongfully refuses to return them upon a lawful demand by the person who has a right to immediate possession. The essence of the tort is the unjustified withholding of possession.

Wrongful Detention of Goods

The central element of Detinue is the wrongful detention of the plaintiff's goods by the defendant. This detention becomes wrongful upon the defendant's refusal to deliver the goods after a clear and lawful demand has been made by the person who is entitled to immediate possession.

Key Requirements for Detinue:

1. Defendant is in Possession of Goods: The defendant must be in actual physical possession of the plaintiff's goods at the time the demand is made.
2. Plaintiff has a Right to Immediate Possession: The plaintiff must have a right to immediate possession of the goods at the time of the demand. This is the same requirement as for conversion. Ownership alone is not sufficient if the right to possess is with someone else (e.g., goods leased out during the lease term).
3. Lawful Demand by Plaintiff: The plaintiff must make a clear, specific, and lawful demand for the return of the goods. The demand must be made to the defendant while they are in possession.
4. Wrongful Refusal by Defendant: The defendant must wrongfully refuse to return the goods or fail to return them within a reasonable time after the demand. The refusal is wrongful if the defendant has no lawful excuse for withholding the goods.

Unlike trespass to goods or conversion, which are typically based on a positive act of interference, Detinue is based on a wrongful omission – the failure or refusal to return goods after a proper demand.

Historically, Detinue had two forms: *Detinue sur bailment* (where the defendant originally came into possession lawfully, e.g., goods were bailed to them) and *Detinue sur trover* (where the defendant came into possession unlawfully, e.g., found or stole the goods). This distinction is less critical now, as the focus is on the wrongful refusal to return after demand.

Detinue is actionable only upon proof of the wrongful detention following a demand and refusal. Unlike trespass, it is not actionable per se; the refusal to return following demand and the resulting inability of the plaintiff to possess their goods is the actionable wrong.

Distinction between Conversion and Detinue

Conversion and Detinue are distinct torts concerning movable property, though they often overlap in practice. Both protect rights in goods, and the facts of a case might allow a plaintiff to sue for either or both. However, they differ fundamentally in the nature of the wrongful act and the available remedies.

Key Differences:

Nature of the Wrongful Act:

• Conversion: Involves a positive act of dealing with the goods in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights, amounting to a denial of their title or dominion. It is an assertion of a right over the goods that is adverse to the plaintiff's rights. The wrong is the act of unauthorized interference itself (e.g., selling, destroying, seriously misusing the goods).
• Detinue: Involves a wrongful omission – the failure or refusal to deliver up possession of the goods to the person entitled to them after a lawful demand. The wrong is the continued unjustified detention.

Requirement of Demand:

• Conversion: Does not necessarily require a demand by the plaintiff. A conversion occurs when the defendant commits the inconsistent act (e.g., selling the goods). The tort is complete at the time of the act.
• Detinue: Requires a lawful demand for the return of the goods by the plaintiff and a subsequent wrongful refusal or failure to return by the defendant. Without a demand and refusal (or circumstances making demand futile), Detinue is not committed.

Remedy:

This is one of the most significant differences between the two torts.

• Conversion: The primary remedy is damages, which are typically assessed as the full market value of the goods at the time of conversion. The effect is often seen as a forced sale; the defendant pays for the goods and effectively acquires title (though this is a complex legal point). The court generally does not order the defendant to return the specific goods.
• Detinue: The court can order damages for the wrongful detention *and*, crucially, can order the defendant to return the specific goods to the plaintiff (specific restitution). The court usually gives the defendant an option: either return the goods *or* pay their value, plus damages for their detention. However, in certain cases where the goods are unique or have special value, the court might order the return of the goods themselves without giving the option to pay damages instead. Damages in Detinue can also include compensation for the loss suffered due to the inability to use the goods during the period of wrongful detention.

Table: Comparison of Conversion and Detinue

Illustration of Distinction:

Analysis:

While Conversion focuses on the defendant's interference with the plaintiff's ownership rights through a positive act, Detinue focuses on the defendant's failure to return the goods after a proper request, highlighting the wrongful withholding of possession. The remedy in Detinue, offering the possibility of recovering the specific goods, is often more attractive to a plaintiff when the goods have unique value.