What is conversion in tort law?
Conversion is a willful interference, without lawful justification, with another person’s chattel in a way that deprives them of its use, possession, or title. 📌 Authority: Ihenacho v Uzochukwu (1997) 2 NWLR
Explain conversion in simple terms.
Conversion occurs when a person deals with another person’s property as if it were his own, without legal right.
What is the scope of conversion?
Any intentional interference with another person’s chattel that denies the owner: • title, • possession, or • use of the chattel. Loss of ANY ONE of these is enough.
What acts can amount to conversion?
- Wrongful taking 2. Wrongful detention 3. Wrongful disposition
Must the defendant intend to convert the goods?
No. Intention or knowledge is IMMATERIAL. It is enough that the defendant interfered with the goods. 📌 Authority: Lewis v Averay (1972) 1 QB 198
What principle was established in Lewis v Averay?
A person who innocently buys goods from a fraudster is still liable for conversion, even if he acted in good faith.
Distinguish conversion from theft.
• Conversion: Civil wrong (tort) – victim gets compensation. • Theft: Criminal offence – punished by the State; compensation not guaranteed.
What are the essential elements of conversion?
- Inconsistent dealing with a chattel 2. Dealing is unlawful and unjustifiable 3. Plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession 4. Dealing denies the plaintiff use, possession, or title
Who may sue for conversion?
• The owner of the chattel • Anyone with custody, temporary possession, or immediate right to possession
What is the rule on hire-purchase and conversion?
A hire-purchaser who sells goods contrary to the agreement commits conversion. 📌 Authority: North Central Wagon & Finance Co Ltd v Graham
How are damages calculated in hire-purchase conversion?
The measure is the lower of: • the value of the goods, OR • the outstanding balance on the hire-purchase agreement. 📌 Authority: Chubb Cash Ltd v Crillery (1993)
Does honest belief in ownership excuse conversion?
No. Good faith is not a defence if the person interferes with goods they are not entitled to. 📌 Authority: Wilson v Lombank Ltd (1963)
What did Wilson v Lombank Ltd decide?
A person who takes goods believing they are his is still liable for trespass/conversion if another person has legal possession.
Name another authority affirming liability despite belief of ownership.
Greenwood v Bennett (1973) QB 195
What right must a plaintiff have to sue for conversion?
Immediate right to possession at the time of the interference.
