Frank parked his car in the stadium parking lot. A fly ball landed in a car parked in the lot belonging to Frank. The parking lot attendant (Paul) saw the ball land in Frank’s car. Paul took the ball from Frank’s car and put it in his pocket. Another attendant say what happened and left a note on Frank’s windshield explaining what had happened. Frank files a conversion complaint against Paul. Issue
How should the court rule on Frank’s conversion complaint? Rules
In Spickler v. Lombardo, 1977 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec, 3 Pa. D. & C.3d 591 (Pa. County Ct. 1977) the found that, “A conversion may be defined as an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel, which seriously deprives or interferes with the lawful right of another person to possess or control it, without the consent of the other or privilege or other lawful justification. The essential elements of a chattel conversion are: (1) the claimant; (2) the claim; (3) wrongful conduct; (4) effect of wrongful conduct; and (5) intention.”
In Newell v. Brooks, 29 Somerset 355 (1972) the court found that, “there are four elements to a conversion complaint;
(1) The Claimant: The claimant must have possessory rights …show more content…
Proof by a plaintiff of fraud or bad faith on the part of the converter will often strengthen his case and may aggravate it. But proof by defendant of good faith, mistake or honesty of intention will not defeat the cause of action. Such factors are, however, given relevance on the issue of the unreasonableness or seriousness of the deprivation or interference with the claimant's rights under the formulation of the law of conversion in determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important: the actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control and the actor's good
How should the court rule on Frank’s conversion complaint? Rules
In Spickler v. Lombardo, 1977 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec, 3 Pa. D. & C.3d 591 (Pa. County Ct. 1977) the found that, “A conversion may be defined as an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel, which seriously deprives or interferes with the lawful right of another person to possess or control it, without the consent of the other or privilege or other lawful justification. The essential elements of a chattel conversion are: (1) the claimant; (2) the claim; (3) wrongful conduct; (4) effect of wrongful conduct; and (5) intention.”
In Newell v. Brooks, 29 Somerset 355 (1972) the court found that, “there are four elements to a conversion complaint;
(1) The Claimant: The claimant must have possessory rights …show more content…
Proof by a plaintiff of fraud or bad faith on the part of the converter will often strengthen his case and may aggravate it. But proof by defendant of good faith, mistake or honesty of intention will not defeat the cause of action. Such factors are, however, given relevance on the issue of the unreasonableness or seriousness of the deprivation or interference with the claimant's rights under the formulation of the law of conversion in determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important: the actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control and the actor's good