Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An element of the tort of conversion requiring that the defendant have deliberately asserted authority over another's chattel. The interference must be so substantial that the defendant may fairly be compelled to pay the chattel's full value.
Rancher Cole lent his pedigree breeding bull to neighboring farmer Miller for one breeding season. Miller branded the bull with his own mark, listed it in his herd's sale catalog, and sold it at a livestock auction. Cole sued Miller. The branding and outright sale showed deliberate assertion of authority over the bull that permanently deprived Cole of control, satisfying the element and requiring Miller to pay the bull's full value.
Artist Lin lent a custom sculpture stand to a private museum for a three-month exhibit. The museum kept using the stand in later shows for several years and recorded it as permanent museum furniture. Lin demanded its return and sued. The extended retention and internal treatment as museum property constituted deliberate assertion of authority that seriously interfered with Lin's control, satisfying the element and supporting liability for the stand's full value.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Conversion requires an intentional exercise of dominion or control that seriously interferes with the owner's right to control the chattel, justifying payment of its full value. Trespass to chattels covers lesser interferences that cause only diminution in value or temporary loss of use. The seriousness of the interference determines which tort applies.
Supporting sources
No. Conversion focuses on the seriousness of the interference with the owner's control rather than physical destruction. Long-term unauthorized use, alteration, or pledging the chattel as collateral can satisfy the element even if the item is later returned intact.
Supporting sources
Good faith is only one factor in assessing the seriousness of the interference. An honest but mistaken belief does not immunize conduct that involves prolonged dominion, alteration of the chattel, or refusal to return it after demand.
Supporting sources
No. Conversion can arise when initially lawful possession becomes wrongful through later acts of dominion inconsistent with the owner's rights, such as refusing to return the item or treating it as one's own.
Supporting sources