This is an extract of our Nominate Torts Trespass To Goods document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law: Nominate Torts Notes collection written by the top tier of University College Dublin students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law: Nominate Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
TRESPASS TO GOODS
• Own rights in relation to goods > tort protects this
• Involves direct interference with possession of goods
• Can arise from
B) taking the possession of another
• First you mst examine the nature of the interference. It must be directly caused by D for you to bring a cause of action
• More general tort - there are other more specific ones
- Example: If you posion the feed for a horse who then consumes it, you have not trespassed against the horse. You've trespassed in relation to the feed. Trespassing to the horse would be directly giving it to it.
McDonagh v West of Ireland Fisheries
D moved P's boat but they couldn't prove that it was the D who directly caused this alleged dmagae.
Farrell v Min. For AG.
ACTIONABLE PER SE
Kirk v Gregory
Interference will suffice. You must show that the damage was either intentional or negligent.
Hastings v ESB 1965
D caused damage to P's cable. They were aware of its existence and this knowledge was sufficient to hold them liable in trespass. The court endorsed fowler v lanning and national coal board v Evans.
The plaintiff's interest
• In order for action to succeed, at time of interference, P must be in actual possession >
- right to immediate access
- actual have them • Mental state and motive irrelevant
• Even if D think the goods are genuinely his, it will still be trespass > strict liability > you don't aks how or why. Once there is an interference there,
lability is triggered.
Usually, D is requested to do deliver goods and refuses to do so.
Central to detinue, is the D's possession of the P's goods being
Adverse to P's rights
Requires P to make a demand
Cullen, Allen & C v Barclay
D failed to return potato sacks in breach of contract. Despite the fact there was a
- Correspondence = insufficient to a demand
- Express terms in a contract not enough to imply demand
➢ Subsequent to demand, there must be a refusal or neglect to return goods
➢ Demand MUST be brought to demand of the D
➢ May be reasonable for D to retain possession of the goods to invetiagte the title
Poole v Burns
Involved a horse which the D auctioneer retained to make inquiries as to the true ownership of the goods (horse) in question. Court said for a reasonable time, lawful authority to investigate. Neverthelss,
- 5 weeks to inquire = too long
Bailees and Finders 1) BAILEE
• Someone who has temporary and lawful possession of goods even if they don't own them
• They still have right to possession at a given time • Post
• Will be liable
• Not liable for losing goods unless he
- Wrongfully disposes of them = conversion
a) Return the goods or its value as assessed and damage for detention b) Return and damage for detention
• An intentional dealing with goods which is inconsistent with the possession or right to possession of another
• If someone takes goods and deals them
• In dealing, this is where the tort is committed
- Dealing must be inconsistent with ordinary dealing of owner
Mills v Brooker 1919
- Cutting overhanging branches and removing the fruit,
- Moving goods from one place to another in order to reach your own is not conversion
Bushell v Miller 1718
- Interference with positioning of goods is not conversion
➢ Voluntary reception of goods trespass but having them trust at you is not
Moorgate Mercantile v Finch 1962
- D's honest belief that he has title to goods under conversion, not a defence
➢ Anything tangible can be converted
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law: Nominate Torts Notes.