DETINUE

Detinue
The act in which a person wrongfully holds the movable property of another.
The Remedy provided by English law is an action in detinue, i.e. specific
recovery of the detained movable property from the person’s possession.
The person who wrongfully detained the movable property is known as a
wrongful detainer.
For recovery of detained movable property, the plaintiff has to prove:
Possession by Plaintiff: The plaintiff must prove that they had lawful
possession of the property at the time of the alleged wrongful detention.
This means they must have had physical control or legal entitlement to the
property.
Wrongful Detention: The defendant must have wrongfully detained or
refused to return the property to the plaintiff. The detention must be
without legal justification or right.
Demand and Refusal: The plaintiff must have made a demand for the
return of the property, and the defendant must have refused to comply with
the demand. This step is important to show that the defendant's detention
of the property is intentional and deliberate.
Examples
if A gives his pressure cooker to B for repairs. Later A pays for the
service to B, but even after receiving the payment B denies to give the
cooker to A. This act of B is the act of detention.
Suppose a person rents a power tool from a rental company and
returns it on time at the end of the rental period. However, the rental
company refuses to return the customer's security deposit, claiming
that the tool was damaged. If the customer believes the tool was
returned in good condition and the rental company has wrongfully
withheld the deposit, the customer may bring a detinue action against
the rental company to recover the deposit.
Imagine a scenario where a friend lends their laptop to another friend
for temporary use. After a while, the borrower refuses to return the
laptop, despite repeated requests from the owner. In this case, the
owner of the laptop can initiate a detinue action against the borrower
to recover the laptop.
Case Law:
In South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (1896), the defendant,
Sharman, had a water meter belonging to the plaintiff, South
Staffordshire Water Co. Despite repeated demands by the plaintiff for
the return of the meter, Sharman refused to return it. The court held
that Sharman was liable in detinue for wrongfully withholding the
plaintiff's property.
Simpson v. Savage (1806): In this case, the plaintiff, Simpson,
entrusted a horse to the defendant, Savage, for grazing. Savage later
refused to return the horse, claiming that Simpson owed him money
for its keep. The court held that Savage's refusal to return the horse
was wrongful, and he was liable in detinue for its return or its value.
Armory v. Delamirie (1722): This landmark case is often cited in
discussions of detinue and conversion. In this case, a chimney sweep
found a jewel and took it to a jeweler's shop to ascertain its value. The
jeweler's apprentice removed the jewel's setting and offered to pay
the sweep a small sum. The sweep refused and later sued for the
value of the jewel. The court held that the apprentice's act constituted
conversion, as it deprived the sweep of possession and control over
the jewel.
 Small v. Smith (1862):
A woman deposited some furniture with a pawnbroker and later asked
for it back. The pawnbroker refused, claiming that he had sold it. The
court held that the pawnbroker was liable in detinue because he had
wrongfully detained the furniture.
Adam v. Newbigging (1903):
The plaintiff deposited his bicycle with the defendant for repairs. When
he went to collect it, the defendant refused to return it. The court held
that the defendant was liable in detinue because he had wrongfully
detained the bicycle.
Garcia v. National Australia Bank (1998):
The plaintiff deposited jewelry with a bank as security for a loan. When
she repaid the loan and asked for the return of her jewelry, the bank
refused. The court held that the bank was liable in detinue because it
had wrongfully detained the jewelry.
Kirkham v. Attenborough (1897):
The plaintiff hired a piano from the defendant and paid the rent up to
date. When he asked for the piano back, the defendant refused to return
it. The court held that the defendant was liable in detinue because he
had wrongfully detained the piano.
Remedies
Return of the goods: The primary remedy for detinue is an order from the
court compelling the defendant to return the wrongfully detained goods to
the plaintiff.
Monetary damages: The court may award damages to compensate the
plaintiff for any losses suffered as a result of the detention, including the
value of the goods, consequential losses, and sometimes additional
compensation for inconvenience or loss of use.
Value of the goods: If the goods cannot be returned or are no longer
available, the court may award monetary compensation equivalent to the
value of the goods at the time of the wrongful detention.
Costs: The court may also order the defendant to pay the costs of the legal
proceedings, including court fees and the plaintiff's legal expenses,
especially if the defendant's actions are found to be particularly egregious.
Defenses
Lack of Ownership- The defendant may claim that they do not have goods
belonging to the plaintiff or that the plaintiff does not have rightful
ownership of the goods.

Justification for Detention- The defendant may argue that they had a lawful
reason for detaining the goods, such as a lien or a valid contract term.

Lack of Demand- The defendant may argue that the plaintiff failed to
demand the return of the goods within a reasonable time, thereby waiving
their right to pursue a claim for detinue.

Third-party Rights- The defendant may assert that a third party has a
superior right to the goods or that the goods are subject to a competing
claim.

Illegality- The defendant may argue that the goods are subject to legal
restrictions or that their return would involve the commission of an illegal
act.
Conversion
Conversion is when someone intentionally interferes with someone
else's property rights, depriving them of using or possessing the item
without any legal justification. Even if the person didn't know they
were doing something wrong, if their actions go against the owner's
rights, it's still considered conversion. For instance, if an auctioneer
sells goods that belong to someone else, they can be held responsible
for the conversion, even if they didn't realize the mistake. Basically, if
you mess with someone's stuff in a way that goes against their rights,
it's conversion.

“An individual is liable to be sued for conversion if he treats goods of

another as if they were his when they are not.”
Types of Conversion
Conversion by Taking
If someone takes someone else's stuff without permission and plans to
control it, that's conversion. This is because it goes against the
owner's right to use their stuff whenever they want. If someone takes
stuff but doesn't plan to control it permanently or temporarily, it's
trespass, not conversion.

Even if someone takes something by mistake, thinking they have the

right to it or wanting to help the real owner, it still counts as
conversion.
Conversion by Parting with Goods
If someone is given someone else's stuff to take care of, but then hands it
over to someone else against instructions, that's conversion. It becomes
conversion when they intend to give the new person ownership rights, not
just possession.

For example, if someone borrows a horse and then leaves it at an inn, that's
conversion because they're changing possession without permission, even if
the owner can get the horse back later. Similarly, if someone rents a piano
and then tries to sell it without permission, they're guilty of conversion, as is
the auctioneer who refuses to give it back until they're paid for the
expenses.
Conversion by Sale

If someone innocently comes into possession of goods that belong to someone

else, and then sells or gives them away, they could be guilty of conversion if
the original owner was deprived of those goods through fraud. For instance, if
an auctioneer sells items that were sent to them for sale but were stolen, they
could be held responsible for conversion if the true owner comes forward.

Lord Denning explained this by saying that when an auctioneer sells goods,
they are responsible for making sure the seller has the right to sell those
goods. If the goods are sold through a bid or auction and it turns out the seller
didn't own them, the auctioneer could be liable. However, if the auctioneer
tries to sell the goods but doesn't succeed, they may not be held liable for
conversion as long as they return the goods in good faith without knowing they
were stolen.
Carritt Moran & Co. v. Manmatha, (1941) ILR 1 Cal 285 ,

This case decided that even if tea leaves are processed into black tea,
they still belong to the owner of the tea garden. So, if someone
trespasses into a tea garden, picks the leaves, and turns them into
black tea, they don't gain any rights over the tea.

If an auctioneer sells this black tea on behalf of the trespasser and

gives them the money, they can be held responsible to the real owner
for conversion. The amount of money the auctioneer has to pay as
damages would be the actual price the tea would have sold for,
without deducting any expenses related to making it, especially if the
trespassing was intentional and criminal.
R.H. Willis & Son v. British Car Auctions, (1978) 2 All ER 392

In this case, the plaintiffs were motor dealers who sold a car to
the defendant after receiving about half of the amount on the
hire-purchase terms that he was not to sell the car before he
paid the balance of the price. The defendant became bankrupt,
and the car as well as the purchaser were not traceable,
resulting in the plaintiffs filing a suit for conversion. The
plaintiff recovered damages in the form of the balance price
from the defendant.
Jerome v. Bentley & Co., (1952) 2 All ER 114

The owner of a diamond ring gave it to C to sell. C was supposed to sell it

within seven days and give the owner the asking price. If not sold, the ring
was to be returned. After seven days, C sold the ring to the defendants at
a lower price, claiming to be the owner. The defendants bought it in good
faith and sold it again. Later, C was found guilty of stealing the ring while
in possession.

The owner sued the defendants for selling the stolen ring. The court ruled
that C wasn't acting as the owner's agent when he sold it to the
defendants. Since C didn't have authority to sell it, he converted it for his
gain. Therefore, the defendants were responsible for returning the ring to
the owner.
Conversion by Keeping

If someone has something that belongs to someone else

and refuses to give it back, they're basically saying they
have control over it instead of the rightful owner. This
goes against the owner's right to use their stuff whenever
and wherever they want. So, by not giving it back, the
person is basically stealing it, which is called conversion.
Conversion by Destruction

Destroying something that belongs to someone else is also considered

a type of stealing, called conversion. When something is destroyed,
like by burning it, it means the owner can't use it anymore. Even if the
person destroying it didn't plan to use it themselves, they still took
away the owner's ability to use it.

Similarly, if someone messes with someone else's stuff without

permission, like replacing wine with water, turning cotton into yarn, or
grinding corn into flour, it's still considered stealing because they're
changing or using something that doesn't belong to them.
Conversion by Denial of Right

Conversion by denial of right happens when someone

acts like they own something that actually belongs to
someone else. This could mean refusing to let the owner
use it or pretending it's theirs when it's not. It's basically
not giving the rightful owner their due control or access
to their property.
Distinction between Trespass and
Conversion
Trespass is a wrong done to the actual possessor and therefore cannot be
committed by a person in possession. On the other hand, conversion is a wrong to
the person entitled to immediate possession. The actual possessor is frequently,
but not always the person entitled to immediate possession, and sometimes a
person entitled to immediate possession is allowed to sue in trespass so that the
conversion may, but does not necessarily, include trespass.

Trespass happens when someone messes with someone else's things without
trying to take ownership of them, even if they accidentally damage them.
Conversion, on the other hand, is when someone disrupts the owner's control over
their belongings, even if the items aren't physically harmed.

In trespass, the main issue is the direct harm caused by force. In conversion, it's
more about taking away someone's property or their ability to use it.
Action for Conversion
Who can sue?

To claim conversion, the person should either have the right to own the
thing right away or own it with possession. Any kind of possession, even
if temporary like a carrier's, is enough to sue someone who did wrong.

A person who finds goods can sue for conversion unless the real owner
does. You need actual possession or an immediate legal right to
possession to sue.

If someone with just a claim of ownership (equitable interest) finds out

someone else bought the goods without knowing about their claim, they
can't sue for conversion against that buyer who now legally owns the
goods.
Defences

No Intention: If the person didn't mean to take someone else's stuff or didn't know
they were doing something wrong, they might not be responsible for conversion.

Permission: If the owner said it was okay for someone else to use or take their
stuff, then it's not conversion.

Necessity: Sometimes, it's necessary to use someone else's stuff to prevent

bigger problems or dangers. In those cases, it might not be considered
conversion.

Belief of Ownership: If the person genuinely thought they owned the stuff or had
the right to use it, they might not be liable for conversion.

Legal Permission: If someone had the legal right or authority to use or take the
stuff, they might not be guilty of conversion.