As far as I can see ...

A ought to have title to sue (cases like Bowmaker v Wycombe [1946] K.B. 505)

But I'm not sure about the conversion. There's no physical dealing with the goods: just the signing of a piece of paper. Now, there is clear authority that taking a lease of premises where goods are isn't necessarily conversion, unless the defendant intends to exclude the plaintiff or exercise dominion (e.g. Thorogood v Robinson (1845) 6 QB 769). The reason is that there's no taking of possession. If so, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander: granting a lease shouldn't count as transferring possession unless it's envisaged that the plaintiff is to be shut out of his goods.


Best wishes to all


Andrew


On 29/06/11 12:01, Jason Neyers wrote:

I post on behalf of Greg Tolhurst:

1.  Assume A hires goods to B to be used in B’s business run from premises leased from C.
2. The contract of hire states that if B fails to pay A on time, or gives up possession of A’s goods, then A may terminate and retake possession.
3. B goes broke and leaves C’s premises with A’s goods there.
4. Before A finds out, C leases the premises with A’s goods intact, to D.

Questions:

(a) Is C liable in conversion?

(b) Is there any defence for C? eg can C argue ius tertii, ie that A did not have immediate right to possession when C took over premises, because A had not at that time sought possession from B?

GREG TOLHURST | Pro-Dean and Professor of Commercial Law
Faculty of Law

THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm No 322, New Law Building | The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
T +61 2 9351 0243 | F +61 2 9351 0200
E law.prodean@sydney.edu.au | W http://sydney.edu.au

Executive Assistant - Sandie Tolliday (Mon – Thurs)

Tel: 02 9351 0425 | Email: sandie.tolliday@sydney.edu.au

CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any attachments.