Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:49
From: Stephen Pitel
Subject: Remedies for Conversion and Trespass to Goods
Here are some Canadian cases bearing on the issue of recovery of security costs:
Hudson’s Bay Co. v. White, [1997] O.J. No. 307 (Gen. Div.)
Southland Canada Inc v. Bradley Zylik, [1999] A. J. No. 1327 (Prov. Ct.)
D.B.C. v. Zellers Inc., [1996] CarswellMan 477 (C.A.)
The thrust of these decisions is that such costs are not recoverable.
Stephen
Barry Allan wrote:
Hello all
I've been thrown a slight curve ball as a consequence of my involvement in the local student run law centre. We have a student who has been sued for trespass to goods and conversion as the result of taking an air-freshener from a convenience store. It’s a fair cop in terms of the value of the goods involved, but the plaintiff added a nasty consequential damages claim. They've invested in a security system, which involves a monitoring cost, and have claimed a part recovery of those costs as a form of consequential damages.
My application of first principles arrives at the conclusion that such a head of damage could not be recovered, as (a) the security system was in place prior to the activities of this individual student and (b) monitoring costs do not flow from his act of conversion (in much the same way as keeping the lights on, while helpful in detection) do not flow from his activities.
The Judge's handling of causation is simply that "but for the defendant and others wrongfully taking the goods, the plaintiff would not have to incur such expenditure" and that the "ongoing expenditure in the detection and prevention of theft from its store is either a foreseeable consequence of the theft or arises directly from such acts".
The whole notion seems more than a little backward, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on cogent authority. Any thoughts?
<<<<
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next
Message >>>>>
|