Tort Q.. Detinue v Conversion

legaleagle10

Does anyone know what the difference between Detinue and Conversion in terms of someone finding Goods?
Scenario: a passer by finds goods (lets say pair of shoes) which fell off the back of a truck, person picks them up and brings them home is this Detinue or Conversion?

johnnyskeleton

legaleagle10 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the difference between Detinue and Conversion in terms of someone finding Goods?
Scenario: a passer by finds goods (lets say pair of shoes) which fell off the back of a truck, person picks them up and brings them home is this Detinue or Conversion?


I know Detinue is where a defendant refuses to return goods wrongfully obtained by him but McMahon & Binchy also discussthe "finding" of goods in respect to Detinue. Conversion on the other hand is where owners goods are wrongfully denied to him, but this in essence could also be if a person finds the true owners goods and takes them home as he is essentially depriving the true owner of his title to his goods.

Can anyone clear this up?

I thought, but could be wrong, that the main difference is that detinue is where someone unlawfully holds your property at the present and you want it back, whereas conversion is where they held it but have since transferred it to another use (potentially their own) and so it is no longer being held in its original form.

So if I take your jacket in the mistaken belief that it is my own, and refuse to give it back to you, you can sue me in detinue. But if I take your jacket and then sell it on to a third party, you can sue me for conversion. Similarly if I take your sandwich, up until the point that I eat the sandwich you can sue me for detinue to get it back (or damages in lieu) but once I eat it your only option is to sue for damages for conversion.

Generally speaking, all of the various bailment/detinue/conversion type torts are pleaded at the same time as alternatives.

legaleagle10

So would Conversion would be the correct Tort for Finders then? Conversion = if I lost my jacket in a pub and someone found it and kept it for themselves.

Detinue=if I knew you had my jacket and I asked for it back and you wouldnt give it back then an action in Detinue would arise? I could remedy that by asking you for the price (value) of my jacket back?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought, but could be wrong, that the main difference is that detinue is where someone unlawfully holds your property at the present and you want it back, whereas conversion is where they held it but have since transferred it to another use (potentially their own) and so it is no longer being held in its original form.

So if I take your jacket in the mistaken belief that it is my own, and refuse to give it back to you, you can sue me in detinue. But if I take your jacket and then sell it on to a third party, you can sue me for conversion. Similarly if I take your sandwich, up until the point that I eat the sandwich you can sue me for detinue to get it back (or damages in lieu) but once I eat it your only option is to sue for damages for conversion.

Generally speaking, all of the various bailment/detinue/conversion type torts are pleaded at the same time as alternatives.

Tom Young

This is very well defined in McMahon and Binchy, you should refer to that.

johnnyskeleton

legaleagle10 wrote: »

So would Conversion would be the correct Tort for Finders then? Conversion = if I lost my jacket in a pub and someone found it and kept it for themselves.

Detinue=if I knew you had my jacket and I asked for it back and you wouldnt give it back then an action in Detinue would arise? I could remedy that by asking you for the price (value) of my jacket back?

Sounds about right. Detinue can be seen as a more benign form of conversion i.e. there is deprivation of physical possession but no intent to deprive of legal possession.

legaleagle10

I was refering to the book as stated in my original post. I dont think its very well defined in McMahon & Binchy. "Finders" are discussed in McMahon in Detinue and Conversion in various instances except the one im looking for i.e which is if a person finds something that's fallen of a truck and absconds (McM & B give egs of where finder is a sub-bailee/or where they lose possession/ wrongfully disposes of goods/ Bailment or in the case of conversion where the true owner cannot be found -which i dont think applies to my question because the goods could be traced..

Tom Young wrote: »

This is very well defined in McMahon and Binchy, you should refer to that.

Viarum

Detinue
Defendant wrongfully refuses to give up a chattel to the plaintiff after a request to do so. Essential that defendant’s possession is adverse to plaintiff’s right. Adverse possession will be proved where plaintiff makes a demand for return of the chattel and is met with refusal.
Cullen, Allen & Co v Barclay (1881) Not liable as plaintiff never requested to get potato sacks back. Court can order return of chattel or its value and potentially damages for its detention.

Conversion
Attempts to protect owners of chattels from conduct which wrongly denies his title to them. Not necessary to prove defendant intended any harm by dealing with the goods, sufficient that his actions amounted to a denial of the true owner’s title. Hollins v Fowler (1875)



These are the extent of my notes on them for the coming KI exams. In last years Q1 they both arise I think. Firstly, where Mr A of X Ltd moves 3 tonnes of metal from Z Ltd's part of the forecourt (in which there is no boundary) to X Ltd's part of the forecourt and covers them with a tarpaulin, this would appear to amount to conversion - arguably denying Z Ltd title to the goods even though X Ltd may not intend to cause any harm by dealing with the goods.

Secondly, on another occassion Mr.A removed two tonnes of material and kept it in a shed at the back. Z Ltd sent X Ltd a digital recording of security footage in regard to the matter. The issue here, as far as I can see, is whether sending video footage to X Ltd would be sufficient to constitute a demand for the return of the chattel and accordingly prove that X Ltd's possession of the material is in fact adverse. If it did, then liability in detinue would appear to exist.

Hope that reference to the 2010 exam helps somewhat, I'm definitely open to correction on both of those assertions though!

legaleagle10

.

shaneybaby

Sorry to bring this one up again but any help for the following would be appreciated (it's a work thing, i know i can ask my master but i trust boardies more:p)

A gives €3000 to B in settlement of a claim but realises after that he'd actually signed the cheque for €5,000.
B refuses to give back the €2,000
A sues B (which is where i come in)
The actual offence is unlawful Conversion of Money ( 30.19, page 788 McMahon & Binchy 3rd ed.) ))

Anyway is it an Ordinary Civil Summons because it's a tort or is it a Summary Civil Summons because it's for a definite sum.....

bath handle

shaneybaby wrote: »

Sorry to bring this one up again but any help for the following would be appreciated (it's a work thing, i know i can ask my master but i trust boardies more:p)

A gives €3000 to B in settlement of a claim but realises after that he'd actually signed the cheque for €5,000.
B refuses to give back the €2,000
A sues B (which is where i come in)
The actual offence is unlawful Conversion of Money ( 30.19, page 788 McMahon & Binchy 3rd ed.) ))

Anyway is it an Ordinary Civil Summons because it's a tort or is it a Summary Civil Summons because it's for a definite sum.....

it should be an equity civil bill on a resulting trust. The District Court does not have jurisdiction to make equitable orders.

shaneybaby

bath handle wrote: »

it should be an equity civil bill on a resulting trust. The District Court does not have jurisdiction to make equitable orders.

Yeah i read that it was an equity matter but to be honest i was pretty confused. Thanks for clearing that up

bath handle

shaneybaby wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

it should be an equity civil bill on a resulting trust. The District Court does not have jurisdiction to make equitable orders.

Yeah i read that it was an equity matter but to be honest i was pretty confused. Thanks for clearing that up

It's effectively a failed gift. love those cases. you should get your entire 5 k back by the time the case ends.

dumas7aika

Would anyone be able to help me out with this question:

Say A wanted to repair his car and left at the repair shop, the mechanic or the owner B of the shop adviced that once they have the parts, they will fix it up. Both parties agreed on a date for the car to be picked up in exchange for the fee. B assured A of the security of the repair sohop, but then A's car was destroyed in the fire due to some trespassers. Is this a detinue or conversion? I understand that Negligent or breach of contract may exist?

Peregrinus

dumas7aika wrote: »

this a detinue or conversion?

Neither. What you have here - goods left with somebody for repair - is a classic case of bailment. The bailee - the person with whom the goods are left - has a duty of care to take reasonable care of the goods. As this is a commercial bailment the duty of care is reasonably high, and certainly includes a duty to secure the premises, and to insure against fire in the premises. The bailor should recover damages.

dumas7aika

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither. What you have here - goods left with somebody for repair - is a classic case of bailment. The bailee - the person with whom the goods are left - has a duty of care to take reasonable care of the goods. As this is a commercial bailment the duty of care is reasonably high, and certainly includes a duty to secure the premises, and to insure against fire in the premises. The bailor should recover damages.

Thank u for that. Do u think negligent is established here as duty of care was breached? And a breach of contract may accompany this as well?

Peregrinus

Strictly speaking, bailment is not a contract (or at least not necessarily a contract) and an action in bailment is distinct from an action in tort. In practice, of course, you'll plead everything - breach of contract, negligence, bailee's duties. You might as well throw in a detinue or conversion claim while you're at it, although I don't honestly think either of them is really in point, and they won't add to the strength of your case.

dumas7aika

Peregrinus wrote: »

Strictly speaking, bailment is not a contract (or at least not necessarily a contract) and an action in bailment is distinct from an action in tort. In practice, of course, you'll plead everything - breach of contract, negligence, bailee's duties. You might as well throw in a detinue or conversion claim while you're at it, although I don't honestly think either of them is really in point, and they won't add to the strength of your case.

If in the same case, that the premise was assured by B that it is a very secured place, with alarm systems, security patrols and wired fence installed, and A did assume B has latest security systems in place (but without confirmation from . So A left his car to be repaired, does this still contribute to breach of duty of care? The assumption made by A can be argued based on the impression given by B, bec A assumed for the nearly perfect security system?
B did have security and alarming system in place, however, insufficiently of keeping the trespassers. So there is a negligent in contract, but what about negligent in tort?