TORTS RELATING TO GOODS

Arthur Sike LLB (Unza), LLM (Turin), Dip. (Bus. Admin.)

 DEFINITION OF GOODS
 How would you define Goods?
 Goods are usually items that an individual can claim
possession and ownership. Note though that a person can
possess goods but not own such goods!

 Therefore, the law of Torts recognizes that a person who

owns goods should be protected from abusive,
deprivation from his goods and thus be able to claim
damages and other rights in the event that such rights are
interfered with!
 TRESPASS TO GOODS
 Therefore, among the Torts that seeks to protect a
person’s right to such goods are:

1. ‘Trespass to Goods’; and

2. ‘Conversion’
 LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE
PRODUCTS
 It a generally accepted principle that the goods that a
person sales to another should be of merchantable quality
and be fit for the purpose that they are procured for;
 Therefore, where it turns out that the goods are defective
and fail to meet the expected standard, the purchaser has a
legal right to claim for damages and or replacement. The
supplier is liable for such defective products!
 Note though that prior information about the state of the
goods before purchase can waive the purchaser’s right to
claim should the goods turn out to be defective;
 The statute that supports the above propositions is the Sale
of Goods Act 1883.
 INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS
 Unlawful interference with another persons goods may
warrant the rightful owner the mandate to sue for
damages under the Tort of Trespass to Goods.

 Such interference clearly meddles with the right of the

person in actual possession and or the legal owner of
such goods.
 TRESPASS TO GOODS
 Any wrongful interference with goods in another’s
possession is therefore actionable as a trespass, without
the proof of damage.

 Actual physical contact is not necessary for as long as

damages can be demonstrated!
 An example of this Tort is the wrongful driving of cattle
away is trespass in the sense that cattle is regarded as
property and interfering with the movement of the cattle
with the intention to deprive the owner amounts to
trespass to goods.
 TRESPASS TO GOODS CONTINUED
 Note that possession is the essence of the right: even
wrongful possession is sufficient against anyone but a
person with a better title!

 Read the case of WILSON V. LOMBANK LIMITED

[1963] 1 W.L.R. 1294
 Let’s examine this example:

 A purchases a car from B, who has no title to it. C who is

the owner of the car takes the car- seeing that he has the
keys to the car- can A sue C for trespass to goods????
 CONVERSION
 At this stage, Conversion is better understood by examples:
a) Stealing the Plaintiff’s goods;

b) Selling the goods;

c) Receiving the goods as a purchaser ;

d) Destroying them or otherwise denying the Plaintiff’s right to

them.
OAKLEY V. LYSTER [1931]1 K.B. 148- The Plaintiff leased
land and dumped material there. The Defendant acquired
freehold and wrongfully claimed that the material was his. He
used some of the material himself and his solicitors warned
the Plaintiff not to enter on the land. The Defendant was held
liable for Conversion of the material.
 CONVERSION CONTINUED
 So, there is no conversion if there is no denial of the
Plaintiff’s right to his/her property.
 WHO CAN SUE?

 Any person who is entitled to IMMEDIATE possession

as against the Defendant may sue. He may even sue the
true owner if, being entitled to temporary possession, he
delivers a chattel up to the owner for some purpose and
the latter refuses to redeliver it. See the case of
CONSOLIDATED CO. V. CURTIS 1 Q.B. 495- An
auctioneer who sold and delivered goods to which his
client had no title was held liable though he had been
ignorant of the true position and had paid his client……..
 POINTS TO NOTE
 When things are found on land, and the true owner is
untraceable, it has been suggested that they vest in the
possessor of the land, unless he clearly had no intention
to control things found there. But there are decisions to
the contrary which are probably irreconcilable!
 Consider the respective cases of SOUTH STAFFS
WATER CO.V. SHARMAN [1896] 2 Q.B. 44- the
Plaintiffs employed the Defendant to clear a pool on
their land. He found two gold rings in the mud. It was
held that the Plaintiff’s were entitled to them.
 POINTS TO NOTE
 A person not entitled to immediate possession (e.g., a
bailor of goods for a fixed term, or a purchaser of goods
which are still subject to the vendor’s lien) cannot sue
for conversion. But the act of conversion itself will often
give him the right to immediate possession.

 MULLINER V.FLORENCE [1878] 3 Q.B.D. 484- An

inkeeper had a lien over the Plaintiff’s goods for another
debt. By selling them he destroyed the lien, and the
Plaintiff could therefore sue for conversion.
DEFENCES TO TRESPASS AND
CONVERSION
 Authority of the Law;
 Retaking the Goods;

 Licence; and

 Abatement of nuisance
 REMEDIES
 RECAPTION: A person entitled to possession of goods of
which he has been wrongfully deprived may retake them,
provided he uses no more than reasonable force. But it is
uncertain he may enter upon the land of an innocent third
party to do so.

 ACTION FOR DAMAGES: The Plaintiff is entitled to the

full value of the chattel at the date of the conversion, and to
other damages if not too remote.

 SOLLOWAY V. MCLAUGHLIN [1938] A.C. 247- Where

shares which had been converted had fallen in value since the
date of conversion. It was held that the Plaintiff could recover
at the higher rate.
 CONCLUSION
 Additions/ subtractions/clarifications

 arthsike@yahoo.com/ SikeA@zra.org.zm