What Does Conversion Mean in Legal Terms

Illegal conversion only applies to physical personal property such as bicycle, mobile phone or computer. Almost anything you own that is mobile can be converted. Real estate is not mobile, so it is not covered. It is a generally accepted rule that interest lost during conversion is refundable. The loss of rental value can be considered as interest. [176] To assert an application for conversion, an applicant must prove that: The exercise of ownership of property can take several forms. All that is needed is for the defendant to exercise control over the property in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff`s right of ownership. [102] The essence of a conversion is not the acquisition of property by the offender, but the unlawful deprivation of someone else`s property, which the owner may own. [103] Conversion occurs when a person illegally uses someone else`s property for their own purposes or alters or destroys it. In a conversion action, the removal of the property may be legal, but the conservation of the property is illegal.

To succeed in the lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that he or she sought restitution of the property and that the defendant refused to do so. Intangible rights could not be lost or regained, and the original common law rule was that there could be no transformation of those rights. This restriction was largely rejected. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] In the absence of conflicting evidence, the set-off measure for the conversion of a negotiable instrument is generally taken at its nominal value. [48] While the economics of the case must be considered before filing a lawsuit (see Buying Justice), the conversion offense is one of the most common lawsuits and includes everything from plaintiffs seeking the illegal removal of jewelry to actions against banks for illegal repossession of property. It is common in prosecutions for embezzlement and fraud, and given the overcrowding of the penal calendar and the reluctance of overburdened district prosecutors to prosecute, a good way for the aggrieved plaintiff to seek redress effectively. The defendant must face the fact that ignorance of true property is not a defense against anything other than criminal transformation, but the defendant still has a large number of defenses to consider. Transformation into law, unauthorized possession of personal property, which leads to circumcision of the owner`s property or change of ownership. The essence of conversion is not the advantage for the illicit recipient, but the disadvantage for the rightful owner. Conversion has been described as a fascinating crime,[8] although it has largely escaped the attention of legal writers. Literature is often confused with that of the Trovers.

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Other sources define transformation as an autonomous act of wrongful supremacy over the personal property of others by denying or incompatible with their title or rights, or by derogating, excluding or disrespecting such title or rights without the consent of the owner and without legal justification. [17] [18] [19] [20] In addition to ordinary unauthorized withdrawals, certain exceptional situations constitute a conversion: detention of goods due to an invalid contract; the purchase of goods by fraud or coercion; Sale of someone else`s property, if delivered; Take money (for example. B in a lost wallet). There is a difference between trover and conversion. Trover solved the old procedural problem of gambling the law, which had evolved as a form of permissible perjury, making destiny unattractive to an honest plaintiff suing a dishonest defendant. Gambling in law has allowed for the testimony of many witnesses who may have nothing to do with the actual legal dispute. In that sense, it wasn`t much different from Champerty and the interview. Since Trover circumvented these old problems, efforts have been made to extend them to many different forms.

The legal way to achieve this was first to treat the charge of losing the property and then to find it as fiction. [26] This method was observed in several cases in the 17th century. [27] [28] [29] [30] As a technical factor, the respondent could not deny having lost and concluded, so the only issues to be heard were the applicant`s right to possession and conversion as an existing fact. Since it was no longer essential to lose and conclude, Trover became the standard remedy for any form of interference with a possession. He completely replaced Detinue, who was completely forgotten. It replaced intrusion to such an extent that the former was rarely seen. [26] In 1756, Lord Mansfield stated in Cooper v Chitty (1756) 1 Burr 20, 31; 97 ER 166, 172: Conversion as a purely civil injustice differs from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act incompatible with someone else`s rights, and theft will also be a transformation. But not all conversions are thefts, because conversion does not require an element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. When someone claims unjust enrichment, the person who owns someone else can always make a change of position in defense to say that they have unconsciously consumed the assets they transferred.