Just to clarify (I wrote my first mail in advance of reading the other replies) - I don't demur from either Professors Stevens or Tettenborn on the point about an exclusionary act being necessary for Conversion - I was rather presuming that and thinking more about the title to sue point, so please read 'could be' for 'are' in first sentence.

As for ius tertii, s 8(1) of the 1977 Act allows a named third party to be joined as a co-defendant, should one be identifiable, (and this is anyway necessary as a result of CPR 19.5A) - all competing claims will then be determined at once.

Best wishes,

Sarah

Sarah Green
Fellow in Law
St Hilda's College
Oxford
OX4 1DY

sarah.green@law.ox.ac.uk

01865 286661
________________________________________
From: Robert Stevens [robert.stevens@ucl.ac.uk]
Sent: 29 June 2011 13:19
To: Jason Neyers
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: ODG: Conversion and Leasing

But in Indian Herbs (UK) Ltd v Hadley Ottoway Ltd the defendants had
interfered with the claimant's right to the goods (either by selling or
using them).

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/627.html

In Jarvis v Williams the defendants had refused to hand the goods over to
the claimant.

The defendants in Union Transport Finance Ltd v British Car Auctions Ltd
had sold the car.

These and the other cases seem to me to be about the standing to sue if
the defendant did something which could amount to conversion.

In the example, I would agree that A has an immediate right to possess the
goods which would enable him to sue, but I don't think C or D have done
anything which could amount to conversion.

Robert

> On behalf of Sarah Green:
>
> Both C and D are liable in Conversion. This is reasonably similar to both
> Indian Herbs (UK) Ltd v Hadley Ottoway Ltd and ors [1999] EWCA Civ 627 and
> Jarvis v Williams [1955] 1 WLR 71 (CA), although in the latter case there
> was no liability since the necessary right to possession was lacking. On
> the facts you have given, the immediate right to possession would revest
> in A on abandonment, whether or not A knew.
> (See also Union Transport Finance Ltd v British Car Auctions Ltd [1978] 2
> All ER 385 (CA), Manders v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 339 and Donald v Suckling
> (1866) LR 1 QB 585.)
> There would be no ius tertii if the terms of the agreement between A and B
> dictated that B's possession was to cease on abandonment/cessation of
> payment.
> Best wishes,
> Sarah
> Sarah Green
> Fellow in Law
> St Hilda's College
> Oxford
> OX4 1DY
>
> --
> Jason Neyers
> Associate Professor of Law
> Faculty of Law
> University of Western Ontario
> N6A 3K7
> (519) 661-2111 x. 88435
>


--
Robert Stevens
Professor of Commercial Law
University College London