Torts Quiz

[jeffjoe]

Yup.


Next torts question:

Does conversion require that you permanently deprive the owner of control of their chattel?

[law543]

Yes. I like to look at conversion in a manner that, after you do what you do, I can no longer benefit from ownership. In essence, you should now own my chattel, and should pay me for that chattel. (I'm operating without the benefit of notes here).

With trespass to chattel, in order to make me whole again, I just need to be compensated for your trespass, and I can go on benefitting from my ownership.

With conversion, my chattel has been permanently damaged (or my *ownership* has been permanently damaged), and I can only be whole by your paying for my chattel, which you now own.

Law543

Yup.


Next torts question:

Does conversion require that you permanently deprive the owner of control of their chattel?

[jeffjoe]

Prof characterized conversion as a forced sale.  Tortfeaser is forced to buy the chattel they took or damaged.

[law543]

Prof characterized conversion as a forced sale.  Tortfeaser is forced to buy the chattel they took or damaged.

Yeah, I couldn't think of that terminology. Thanks.

Law543

[jeffjoe]

here's an easy one.

Is conversion of the car keys the same as conversion of the car?

[law543]

*laughs* Obviously, not. Although they may be guilty of conversion OF the keys...it doesn't follow that it equals conversion of the car.

Unless we have a very unique case of where only one single key exists for your car...and it is irreplaceable. Then conversion of the car might follow conversion of the keys.

Law543

here's an easy one.

Is conversion of the car keys the same as conversion of the car?

[jeffjoe]

Conversion of the keys is conversion of the car.  The fact that there may be another set of keys elsewhere doesn't change it.

Russell-Vaughn Ford v. Rouse, 281 Ala. 567, (Ala. 1968)

[law543]

Conversion of the keys is conversion of the car.  The fact that there may be another set of keys elsewhere doesn't change it.

Russell-Vaughn Ford v. Rouse, 281 Ala. 567, (Ala. 1968)

You got me. Never read it. What is the reasoning? Never mind...I'll look it up.

Law543

[jeffjoe]

The keys control the car.  Just because P could get another set of keys doesn't change the fact that the tortfeasor converted the controlling instrument of the car.

[law543]

The keys control the car.  Just because P could get another set of keys doesn't change the fact that the tortfeasor converted the controlling instrument of the car.

Yep, just read it...but this seems to defy the law's goal of a balance of a rough sense of justice and a rough sense of expediency. I just don't get it. By definition, technically, I can understand why they conclude conversion...but is this practical?

Wouldn't this better be served with a trespass to chattel theory? After all, P can be made whole by compensation. He hasn't permanently lost the use of his car because he lost his keys.

What am I missing? And I don't mean the technical aspects of why they ruled this way...I think I get that...I mean...how is this just and practical?

Law543