Trespass to Goods v Conversion

Trespass to goods can be defined as when person had committed wrongful and direct
act which interfered with goods that are in another’s person possession. Meanwhile,
conversion is the dealing of goods in an inconsistent manner that deprived the right of the
true owner, or the person who has the possession over the goods. Hence, even though trespass
to goods and conversion are both under the same category of interference with goods, but
there are differences between them.
The first difference between trespass to goods and conversion can be observed
through intention of committing such act. Even though trespass to goods and conversion
share the same element to bring claim in them, which is the element of mental state of
defendant, this means that the person must have intention when doing such act, the defendant
must also carry out the act of trespass to goods or conversion deliberately, and voluntarily.
Hence, the defendant may not succeed in raising the defense that they are not aware or had
the knowledge of committing trespass to goods or conversion, due to the fact that their
voluntary acts had denotes their intention. However, the intention of trespass to goods
merely extend to the intention of defendant’s act of interfering with the goods intentionally
but they did not have intention to make the goods for their own usage, as an illustration, A
took B’s pen without asking for his consent, this showed that A had the intention of interfered
with B’s goods by the deliberate act of taking B’s pen without lawful justification. Moreover,
for trespass to goods, the intention of interfering with someone’s goods deliberately can be
explained in the case of Wilson v Lombank, in this case the defendant mistook plaintiff’s car
from the workshop, with belief that the car belonged to the defendant. The court held that
even though the act was carried out under mistake, but it was an intentional act, hence
defendant is liable for trespass to goods. Thus, from Wilson’s case, we can observe that the
intention for trespass to goods only extent to the taking of plaintiff’s car from the workshop,
which showed that the defendant has the intention to interfere with the plaintiff’s goods, but
he did not have the intention of using it as his own car. Meanwhile, the intention of
conversion is further extended to the intention of depriving plaintiff’s right to have
possession in goods, such deprivation may be caused by the defendant’s intention to use
plaintiff’s goods for his own usage. As an illustration, A not only took B’s pen without
permission, he also used the pen for his own usage namely to use the pen to draw. Hence, A
had showed his intention to use B’s pen for his own usage, which deprived B’s right over his
pen, and such intention will amount to conversion. For conversion, the intention of depriving
plaintiff’s right to have possession in goods can be showcased in the case of Kuwait
Airways Corp v Iraqi Airways (No 3), in this case. the defendant seized plaintiff’s aircraft,
which caused plaintiff to bring claim in conversion against the defendant. The court held that
the defendant is liable for conversion because he had intention to keep the aircraft and used
them as his own. Hence, by looking Kuwait Airways Corp’s case, we can know that the
defendant not only took plaintiff’s aircraft but he also has intention to use the aircraft for his
own usage, which deprived the plaintiff’s possession over the airplane, and such intention of
making use of other’s goods as one of their own goods will amount to conversion. Hence, in
can be concluded that the element of intention for trespass to goods only extents to the mere
detention or interference with goods, without planning to make the goods as one of his own,
but the intention of conversion extends to the defendant’s act of making the goods as one of
his own, which can cause the plaintiff to lose the right to be entitled to the possession of his
goods.
In addition, the main difference between trespass to goods and conversion can be
showcased in the element of interference. Even though the person who brings claim in
conversion and trespass to goods must establish the element of interference, but the degree of
interference for both of these torts are different. For trespass to goods, the interference is
only extended to defendant’s direct act, such direct act means that the defendant must had
immediate contact with plaintiff’s goods or property. In other words, this also means that the
interference is in physical nature and it must also be wrongful. For example, the taking of
someone’s goods and detain the goods amounts to trespass to goods, because there is
interference from defendant’s direct act namely the taking and detaining the goods, and such
acts are physical in nature because it is an act that can be seen. This can be further explained
in the case of Kirk v Gregory, the defendant moves the rings of deceased to another room
without getting permission, and he also could not provide reasonable justification for his act.
The court held that the defendant is liable for trespass to goods, because the defendant carried
out his act voluntarily and directly. The court also held that the removal of rings and moved
them to another room amounts to physical interference unless the defendant could provide
reasonable justification for him to carry the act. Hence, from Kirk’s case we can denote that
the degree of interference for trespass to goods must be direct and physical in nature, such
physical and direct interference is when the defendant had removed the ring from the room
and placed it to another room. However, for conversion, the interference must be an
interference that amounts to a denial or deprivation of the owner’s right to have possession.
Such denial of goods must be absolute, that it excludes the rightful owner to have possession
over the goods absolutely. Hence, mere interference namely mere detention of goods does not
give rise to conversion, but the detention must be accompanied with the act of exercising
rights which is inconsistent with the owner’s right such as through converting the goods for
their own usage, misdelivering, or converting the nature of goods, by doing so, it will give
rise to conversion. This can be further explained in the case of The Jag Shakti, the plaintiff
was a salt importer while the defendant is the ship owner responsible for the shipment of salt,
the plaintiff had two bills of lading. However, the defendant upon arrival did not give the salt
to plaintiff, but he gave it to M. Hence, the plaintiff bring claim in conversion against
defendant. The court held that the defendant is liable for conversion, because he gave the salt
to M, instead of plaintiff who had bills of lading. Hence, from The Jag Shakti’s case, the
interference of the conversion is extended to when the defendant gave the salt to another
person and he had exclude absolutely the plaintiff’s right to have possession over the salt
even though the plaintiff had two bills of lading, hence defendant’s act of interference with
plaintiff’s possession over the salt along with denying plaintiff’s right to have the rightful
possession over the salts by giving the salts to others, amounts to conversion. In summary, for
trespass to goods, the interference must be direct and physical in nature, but for conversion,
the interference must also be accompanied with act that deprived rightful owner’s right to
have possession over his goods.
In short, it is important to know the differences between trespass to goods and
conversion, this is to ensure that the plaintiff will be aware of bringing the right claim either
under trespass to goods or conversion.