👀
Torts • Intentional Torts
TORT#005
Legal Definition
Conversion is (1) an intentional act that interferes with plaintiff's right to possession of a chattel (2) so seriously that it warrants requiring the defendant to pay the chattel's full value.
Plain English Explanation
Trespass to Chattel and Conversion are two similar torts that involve messing with someone's stuff. The real difference between either comes down to the degree of interference with the property. In other words, when you own something, you not only have a right to generally do whatever you want with your property, but you also have the right to be free from someone else interfering with either you possessing your property, or the condition of your property, etc.
Trespass to Chattel is considered a minor interference with someone's personal property, like putting a bumper sticker on someone's car without their permission, or borrowing someone's phone for a moment and not giving it back when they ask for it. On the other hand, Conversion is an interference so serious that courts will require the defendant to compensate the owner for the full value of the item. Courts decide this by looking at the circumstances surrounding the interference, but it generally it comes down to "what's the best way to make up for the interference?"
When interference can be made right simply by giving the item back, or forcing the defendant to pay to repair/undo whatever they did to the property, the tort is likely only to be a trespass to chattel. Alternatively, if the damage is so great, or if the defendant's actions are so offensively out of line, that justice isn't served by minor repair costs or giving possession back to the owner, the tort may cross the threshold to conversion. On an exam, whenever someone messes with someone's property, the first thought should be, "Is this a trespass to chattel?" If so, and if the person is being a real jerk about it, then explore whether it qualifies as a conversion.
Trespass to Chattel is considered a minor interference with someone's personal property, like putting a bumper sticker on someone's car without their permission, or borrowing someone's phone for a moment and not giving it back when they ask for it. On the other hand, Conversion is an interference so serious that courts will require the defendant to compensate the owner for the full value of the item. Courts decide this by looking at the circumstances surrounding the interference, but it generally it comes down to "what's the best way to make up for the interference?"
When interference can be made right simply by giving the item back, or forcing the defendant to pay to repair/undo whatever they did to the property, the tort is likely only to be a trespass to chattel. Alternatively, if the damage is so great, or if the defendant's actions are so offensively out of line, that justice isn't served by minor repair costs or giving possession back to the owner, the tort may cross the threshold to conversion. On an exam, whenever someone messes with someone's property, the first thought should be, "Is this a trespass to chattel?" If so, and if the person is being a real jerk about it, then explore whether it qualifies as a conversion.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob puts an offensive bumper sticker on the back of Sam's car. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel.
Hypo 2: Bob kick's Sam's skateboard, which slams into Sam's car causing a dent. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel by both kicking Sam's skateboard, as well as denting Sam's car.
Hypo 3: Bob sees Sam put his phone down on the table. Bob picks it up. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel.
Hypo 4: Bob asks Sam if he can use his phone to make a call. Sam agrees. Bob uses the phone to make a call. Sam asks for his phone back, and Bob ignores Sam and continues to use the phone until Sam screams at Bob, who then gives it back. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel.
Hypo 5: Bob asks Sam if he can use his phone to make a call. Sam agrees. Bob takes the phone and walks off, refusing to give it back. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's phone by refusing to return it. Sam may use the courts to force Bob to return it, or he may opt to force Bob to pay the fair market value of the phone.
Hypo 6: Sam lets Bob borrow his car. Bob decides to have the car repainted, stereo replaced, and a large spoiler bolted to the back of the car. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's car by substantially changing it.
Hypo 7: Sam lets Bob borrow his Toyota Prius to go to work. Instead, Bob takes it off-roading all day. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's car by misusing it. This may seem a bit extreme, because Bob returned the car and it could arguably only need minor repairs. However, the chattel was so severely misused that maybe Sam doesn't want to deal with all the unknown issues that may come up from his Prius being so overly abused and, instead, would rather get a different car to err on the safe side.
Hypo 8: Bob finds a watch on the ground. Rather than follow the statutory requirements for lost property, he opts to take it to a pawn shop and sell it. Result: Bob has committed conversion of the watch, because he wrongfully sold property that he did not have the right to sell.
Hypo 2: Bob kick's Sam's skateboard, which slams into Sam's car causing a dent. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel by both kicking Sam's skateboard, as well as denting Sam's car.
Hypo 3: Bob sees Sam put his phone down on the table. Bob picks it up. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel.
Hypo 4: Bob asks Sam if he can use his phone to make a call. Sam agrees. Bob uses the phone to make a call. Sam asks for his phone back, and Bob ignores Sam and continues to use the phone until Sam screams at Bob, who then gives it back. Result: Bob has committed a trespass to chattel.
Hypo 5: Bob asks Sam if he can use his phone to make a call. Sam agrees. Bob takes the phone and walks off, refusing to give it back. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's phone by refusing to return it. Sam may use the courts to force Bob to return it, or he may opt to force Bob to pay the fair market value of the phone.
Hypo 6: Sam lets Bob borrow his car. Bob decides to have the car repainted, stereo replaced, and a large spoiler bolted to the back of the car. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's car by substantially changing it.
Hypo 7: Sam lets Bob borrow his Toyota Prius to go to work. Instead, Bob takes it off-roading all day. Result: Bob has committed conversion of Sam's car by misusing it. This may seem a bit extreme, because Bob returned the car and it could arguably only need minor repairs. However, the chattel was so severely misused that maybe Sam doesn't want to deal with all the unknown issues that may come up from his Prius being so overly abused and, instead, would rather get a different car to err on the safe side.
Hypo 8: Bob finds a watch on the ground. Rather than follow the statutory requirements for lost property, he opts to take it to a pawn shop and sell it. Result: Bob has committed conversion of the watch, because he wrongfully sold property that he did not have the right to sell.
Visual Aids
