Principle interference with another rsquo s goods in such a way as to deny the latter rsquo s title ...........

Legal Concepts Law of Torts

Principle: interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.

Facts: ‘R’ went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle.

He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to ‘S’. In fact, ‘R’ was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. ‘S’ filed a suit against ‘R’ for conversion.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

‘R’ could not be held liable for the negligence of the watchman

‘S’ would succeed because R’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle

‘S’ would not succeed because ‘R’ did not take away the bicycle himself

‘S’ would not succeed because R’s intention was not bad

Explanation:

The principle is not on negligence and therefore we are not concerned with the liability of the watchman. We are verifying whether the actions of R amount to conversion. R’s actions were such that they led to stealing of S’s bike. R may not have the intention nor may have foreseen it, but nevertheless his act of leaving the bike outside the stand lead to it being stolen. Therefore R’s act amounts to conversion against S.