Abusing possession

As with most abuses, there may be few defenses available to a party who has been
accused of conversion. We will discuss into detail at below.
Numerous forms
Lien
Lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment
of a debt or performance of some other obligation. Either general or special cases duel
with this. In this situation, it becomes significant that demand and refusal are no longer
evidence of conversion where the party has the lien upon the property. This indicated that
a mere demand of the property from the bailee (a person or party to whom goods are
delivered for a purpose without transfer of ownership) and its refusal on the part of the
bailer will not amount the act to be the act of conversion.
Right of stoppage in transit
The defendant deal with this defense when the sale of property worked in such situation:
property is sold by the seller in such a way that the original owner of that property suffers
the damage making him unable to exercise his right to enjoy that property. The
defendants can claim that the property have in the transit of the final act committed here.
For example, for what a person is being held for, he is not the final holder of those goods
but is merely a medium or a single entity of a larger chain or that he is not the final
beneficiary of the being committed.
Denial of plaintiffs right of property
In this defense, the defendant argues that plaintiffs have no right over the property that
belongs to him. This means in this case, possession of the property by the defendants is
instantly denied. In this regard the institution of jus tertii (a legal classification for an
argument made by a third party, as opposed to the legal title holder which attempts to
justify entitlement to possessory rights based on the showing of legal title in another
person) becomes significant. This defense is applicable when the plaintiff had only the

rights to possess the property but not in the possession and it is used to save defendant
himself. However, the defendant cannot institute a claim for jus tertii when the plaintiff
was in possession of the goods at the time of conversion.
Distress
This is the type of defense where goods are taken under a distress or under an execution
which means that the property is not deliberated if the property were taken away or it
interfered with the enjoyment of the property of the other. Due to there is something
really more important in the ordinary sense, the whole situation was gone so. From this
perspective, we knew that law could be granted more value to the other act than the
negative act of conversion on the part of the defendant. Therefore, it categorized as a
strong defense in legal law.
Sale in market overt
Market overt is defined as an English legal concept originating in mediaeval times
governing subsequent ownership of stolen goods. In general, the sale of stolen goods
does not convey effective title. Sale of goods in market overtly gives good title to the
purchaser by taking consideration into the English Law. Whenever a purchaser parts with
the goods or refuses to give them up on demand, the purchaser cannot be sued under
conversion, but the seller can be sued if he has no title.
Disposition without transfer at possession
An individual would be deemed to be guilty of conversion when the individual gives
some other individuals the right to own the goods, but actually those goods belong to
somebody else without lawful justification. There were some cases where an individual
possesses goods which he has no right on them, but however dispose them by sale,
pledge or otherwise that he confers a god title to them on others effectively, though
wrongfully.
Case analysis: Syeds v. Hey

This case was held by the court, that the givers and the receivers would be responsible as
joint tortfeasors (one who commits or is guilty of a tort). There is a conversion if
individual A takes individual Bs horse to ride, and leaves him at a guest house. Although
the owner may get his house back but he has to pay for its keeping.

This guided us to understand that law takes into account the harm or damage caused to
the person such that the victim has a greater significance into the eyes of law. Since
neither is there a contractual relationship nor is there any other way out by which the
victim can recover from the damages caused, it becomes difficult to compensate the
victim. In such cases the victim does not have other way out but take damages himself.
This certainly would cause chaos in the society and the very existence of law would be at
stake. Therefore, the law takes the recourse to compensate such victims to maintain the
justness and reasonableness of the society after the consideration to the position of the
party at loss. Meanwhile, it invalidated the indirect loss of the third party. The courts will
always choose to let the lesser evil to exist, although it is not really reasonable but it is
compulsory to make a decision. Hence, the courts must not be blamed in this matter for
any apparent injustice.
Destruction and alteration
Under this topic, we will discuss about a really interesting branch of conversion. Any
individual is deemed to be guilty of conversion that willfully consumes or otherwise
destroys a property belonging to another individual without lawful justification. A mere
damage which falls short of actual destruction is necessary to be mentioned but cannot be
stated to have amounted to conversion. This means that either the identity of that article is
deformed or it is no longer still the same as that it normally functioned due to the
destruction caused to the property of the party.

Case analysis: Richardson v Atkinson

In this case, the defendant took out some wine out of the plaintiffs barrel and mixed
water with the remainder to make good the deficiency. Due to he had converted the parts

of its contents by taking them away and the remaining part by destroying their identity, e
was held responsibility on the conversion of the whole barrel.

This indicates that some objects cannot be used in the same manner, as in generally used.
This is a damaging or lost to the owner of the property. In this matter, the owner is liable
to be compensated for the loss suffered because it becomes necessary to mention that
since his right to exercise ownership has been interfered with. This can be further
explained by the examples of grapes are converted into wine and cotton is woven into
clothes as these are the facts that proved the identity of a good had changed. In such
situation, although the material is not lost but the identity of the original good is lost like
the examples above, the cotton now cannot be used for the purpose of making quilts.

References:
1) Conversion- an "Intentional" Tort. (n.d.). Retrieved July 09, 2016, from
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/int_torts.htm
2) Defenses to Conversion. (n.d.). Retrieved July

09,

2016,

from

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-conversion.html
3) Dobbs, D. (n.d.). Law of Torts (Hornbook Series). Retrieved July 09, 2016, from
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=LIbaCgAAQBAJ