Issue: Under Florida law, can a cause of action for conversion be brought when an individual unlawfully takes property owned by the true owner, even if the property has no actual value?
Rule: A cause of action may be brought when an act of dominion has been wrongfully asserted over another 's property inconsistent with his ownership, even if the specific property converted has no actual value. In the precedent case Warshall v. Price, Appellant, Dr. Steven Warshall, began a private practice in Palm Beach in 1978. In 1984, Warshall hired Price, also a cardiologist, for an employment span of four years. Two weeks prior to the conclusion of the agreed upon employment duration, Price informed Warshall that he intended to terminate the employment …show more content…
In the Warshall v. Price case, Price only took a copy from Warshalls computer, thereby still allowing Warshall the ability to access the patient list. This argument is immaterial, however, because once Warshalls ' patients were transferred to Price, the value of the patient list was diminished, as Warshall was no longer receiving revenue from over 300 of his previous patients. In our clients case, Roderick 's business card was physically stolen by Finn leaving Roderick completely deprived of his ability to access the information on the business card. In addition, Warshall and Price had prior contacts through an employment agreement, in which they shared mutual patients. With this fact, one might argue that there was a mutual interest and right to the patient list by Price. However, in our case, Roderick had no previous relationship with Finn, therefore, Finn lacked a prior interest in the information until she heard Roderick 's conversation with Nieves and took Roderick 's ' business card without …show more content…
As in the Warshall v. Price case, conversion is an appropriate cause of action even if the specific property converted has no inherent value. While it is true that the business card itself had no actual value as property, considering it is simply paper, it is still capable of being converted because it was the future business revenue that our client would have received had he been able to make contact with Nieves. When Finn took possession of the card, without authorization, she deprived our client of the benefit of the information on the card and used it to our clients disadvantage, and thus will likely be liable for
Rule: A cause of action may be brought when an act of dominion has been wrongfully asserted over another 's property inconsistent with his ownership, even if the specific property converted has no actual value. In the precedent case Warshall v. Price, Appellant, Dr. Steven Warshall, began a private practice in Palm Beach in 1978. In 1984, Warshall hired Price, also a cardiologist, for an employment span of four years. Two weeks prior to the conclusion of the agreed upon employment duration, Price informed Warshall that he intended to terminate the employment …show more content…
In the Warshall v. Price case, Price only took a copy from Warshalls computer, thereby still allowing Warshall the ability to access the patient list. This argument is immaterial, however, because once Warshalls ' patients were transferred to Price, the value of the patient list was diminished, as Warshall was no longer receiving revenue from over 300 of his previous patients. In our clients case, Roderick 's business card was physically stolen by Finn leaving Roderick completely deprived of his ability to access the information on the business card. In addition, Warshall and Price had prior contacts through an employment agreement, in which they shared mutual patients. With this fact, one might argue that there was a mutual interest and right to the patient list by Price. However, in our case, Roderick had no previous relationship with Finn, therefore, Finn lacked a prior interest in the information until she heard Roderick 's conversation with Nieves and took Roderick 's ' business card without …show more content…
As in the Warshall v. Price case, conversion is an appropriate cause of action even if the specific property converted has no inherent value. While it is true that the business card itself had no actual value as property, considering it is simply paper, it is still capable of being converted because it was the future business revenue that our client would have received had he been able to make contact with Nieves. When Finn took possession of the card, without authorization, she deprived our client of the benefit of the information on the card and used it to our clients disadvantage, and thus will likely be liable for