Mindel Scott

Legal Definition of Converts

Conversion has been described as a fascinating illicit injustice,[8] although it has largely escaped the attention of legal authors. Literature often passes into that of the trover. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Other sources define conversion as a clear act of unlawful domination over the personal property of others, in denial or incompatibility with one`s title or rights, or in deviation, exclusion or disregard of that title or rights, without the consent of the owner and without lawful justification. [17] [18] [19] [20] The basics of conversion. Conversion is a legal term that describes a civil act (when someone does something wrong but the criminal law is not broken) in which a person “converts” another person`s property for himself. Fundamentally. theft. Any other ways to think about it? When someone claims to own something that belongs to someone else. Or, if someone does something with a good that changes its value, which they are not entitled to because they are not there to change. While the economics of the case must be considered before initiating legal proceedings (see Purchase Justice), the tort of conversion is one of the most common legal actions and includes everything from plaintiffs alleging illegal jewelry removal to lawsuits against banks for illegal repossession of property. It is common in embezzlement and fraud trials, and given the overcrowded criminal calendar and the reluctance of overburdened district prosecutors to prosecute, it is a good way for the aggrieved complainant to seek effective remedies.

The accused must face the fact that ignorance of true property is not a defence against persons other than criminal conversion, but the defendant still has a large number of defences to consider. The defendant has the right to prove the existence of facts that would make it unfair to allow the plaintiff to recover the full value. As a general rule, the defendant is not entitled to deduct the maintenance and maintenance costs that would normally be incurred for the maintenance of the converted property. The return of the goods after acceptance by the owner may reject the claim or be used as a mitigating fact. However, the mere offering of the converted property does not necessarily exclude all damages that may have occurred as a result of the original tort. Actions in legal proceedings may constitute a full defense and mitigate damages. [177] N. A civil injustice (misdemeanour) in which someone else`s property is converted into one`s own use, which is an elegant way of saying “steal”. Conversion involves treating someone else`s property as property, keeping such property that accidentally falls into the hands of the converter (lessee), or deliberately creating the impression that the property belongs to them. This gives the true owner the right to pursue their own property or the value and loss of use and contact law enforcement, as conversion usually involves the crime of theft. Civil offences.

unlawfully handing over or using the personal property of others for the use of the recipient or a person other than the owner; or the unlawful destruction or alteration of their nature. Bull. N. p. 44; 6 Fair 20; 14 Selection. 356; 3 Brod. and Bing. 2; Cro. Eliz. 219 12 Mod.

519; 5 Fair 104; 6 Shepl. 382; History, Bailm. ยงยง 188, 269, 306; 6 Fair 422; 2 vol. and p. 488; 3 B. & ald. 702; 11 M. and W. 363; 8 taunts. 237; 4 taunts. 24.

2. If one party unlawfully removes or takes back the right in goods belonging to another party, this is usually sufficient evidence of conversion, but if the initial removal was lawful, as if the party had found the goods, and the retention is only illegal, it is absolutely necessary to make a claim for the goods. and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion is completed. 1 chap. p. 566; 2 Saund. 47 (e), note 1, chap. Pl. 179; Ferry. From. Trover, B 1 Com.

Dig. 439; 3 Com. Dig. 142; 1 wine. From. 236; Yelv. 174, N.; 2 East, r. 405; 6 East, r. 540; 4 taunts. 799 5 Barn. and Cr.

146; S. C. 11 Eng. C. L. Rep. 185; 3 Bl. Com.

152; 3 bouv. Inst. n. 3522, ff. The refusal of a servant to hand over the goods entrusted to him by his master is not proof of conversion by his master. 5 hills, 455. 3. The tortious expropriation of property is in itself a conversion 15 John.

R. 431 and any interference or exercise of domination over it, which affects the dominance of the owner or the type of security when paid against surety, constitutes proof of conversion. 1 Nott and McCord, r. 592; 2 Mass. R. 398; 1 Har. and John. 519; 7 John.

R. 254; 10 John. R. 172 14 John. No. 128; Cro. Eliz. 219; 2 John. Case 411. Empty Trover.

The first cases that allowed a conversion suit were based on allegations that the plaintiff owned certain personal property and then accidentally lost it, and the defendant found it and did not return it, but instead “converted it for his own use.” This sentence was taken up and gave a name to a crime that was originally a kind of trial on the case, a form of intrusion. Over time, the plea that the plaintiff had lost his property and that the defendant had found it was considered a legal fiction (i.e., a decision was rendered in the case as if the objection was true and did not need to be proved).