DOCSLIB.ORG

LAW REFORM COMMISSION of BRITISH COLUMBIA Working

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAW REFORM COMMISSION of BRITISH COLUMBIA Working LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Working Paper No. 67 Wrongful Interference With Goods This Working Paper is circulated for criticism and comment. It does not represent the final views of the Commission. It would be appreciated if comments could be submitted by April 30, 1993. November, 1992 The Law Reform Commission of British Columbia was established by the Law Reform Commission Act in 1969 and began functioning in 1970. The Commissioners are: ARTHUR L. CLOSE, Q.C., Chairman HON. RONALD I. CHEFFINS, Q.C., Vice-Chairman LYMAN R ROBINSON, Q.C. PETER T. BURNS, Q.C. THOMAS G. ANDERSON Gregory G. Blue and Elizabeth S. Liu are Legal Research Officers to the Commission. Sharon St. Michael is Secretary to the Commission. Linda Grant provides text processing and technical copy preparation. The Commission offices are located at Suite 601, Chancery Place, 865 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2G3. The Law Reform Commission gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Law Foundation of British Columbia in carrying out this project. Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. Wrongful interference with goods (Working paper, 0712-1741 ; no. 67) Cover title: Working paper on wrongful interference with goods Includes bibliographical references: ISBN 0-7718-9709-X 1. Trover and conversion - British Columbia. I. Title. II. Title: Working paper on wrongful interference with goods. III. Series: Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. Working paper ; no. 67. KEB238.A72L38 1992 346.71103’6 C92-092103-5 KF705.L38 1992 Introductory Note The Commission makes a general practice of inviting comment and criticism on its research and analysis prior to making a Report to the Attorney General on any particular subject. One of the means by which the Commission carries out this objective is the circulation of Working Papers to those persons, groups or organizations to whom the particular subject under study would be of interest. This process of soliciting comments of interested persons and bodies provides the Commission with the benefit of the experience and views of the community, and thereby assists the Commission in making proposals for the reform of the law that are both relevant and sound. This Working Paper represents the present state of the Commission’s research on the subject under study, and marks the point at which the views and comments of others would be of greatest value to the Commission. The final recommendations of the Commission will be developed in the light of the comment and criticism received. It would be appreciated if comments and criticism were submitted by June 30, 1992, to the following address: Law Reform Commission of British Columbia Suite 601, Chancery Place 865 Hornby Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2G3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION.........................................................1 A. Personal Property......................................................1 B. The Common Law Actions..............................................1 II THE COMMON LAW ACTIONS...........................................3 A. Introduction..........................................................3 B. The Common Law Actions..............................................4 C. Some Examples.......................................................5 D. Features of the Principal Common Law Actions.. 7 1. Detinue.........................................................8 (a) Generally...................................................8 (b) Summary...................................................9 2. Trespass to Chattels. .............................................1 0 (a) Generally..................................................1 0 (b) Summary..................................................1 1 3. Conversion. ....................................................1 1 (a) Generally..................................................1 1 (b) Contrasted With Trespass to Chattels and Detinue. 1 2 (c) Who May Sue?..............................................1 3 (d) Misfeasance and Nonfeasance..................................1 3 (e) What Kinds of Property May Be Converted?. 1 4 (f) Measure of Damages.........................................1 4 (i) Date of Conversion......................................1 4 (ii) Proceeds. .............................................1 5 (iii) Nominal Damages.......................................1 6 (iv) Summary..............................................1 6 E. Categories of Distinctions Drawn By the Law. 1 8 1. Ownership and Possession.........................................1 8 2. Immediate Rights and Other Kinds of Rights: Who May Sue?. 1 9 3. Direct Interference and Indirect Interference. 1 9 4. Kinds of Available Remedies.......................................1 9 5. Third Party Rights................................................2 0 6. Summary.......................................................2 1 III LEGACIES OF THE LAW................................................2 2 A. Introduction.........................................................2 2 B. Modern Procedure....................................................2 3 C. The Former Law and the Common Law Torts. 2 3 1. Introduction.....................................................2 4 2. Divided Jurisdiction of the Courts...................................2 4 3. The Forms of Action..............................................2 5 4. Multiple Claims. ................................................2 7 5. Multiple Parties..................................................2 8 (a) Narrowing the Issues in Dispute................................2 9 (b) Pleading and Legal Fictions....................................3 0 D. Summary...........................................................3 3 IV THE NEED FOR REFORM...............................................3 5 A. Introduction.........................................................3 5 B. The Likelihood of a Common Law Solution. 3 5 1. Detinue, its Death and Revival......................................3 5 2. The Common Law Actions in The 20th Century. 3 6 3. Failure of Earlier Reforms. ........................................3 9 4. Factors That May Explain Why the Law Has Stopped Developing.. 4 0 C. Conclusion..........................................................4 1 V REFORM...............................................................4 2 A. Introduction.........................................................4 2 B. Models For Reform...................................................4 2 C. General Principles....................................................4 4 1. A Single Tort. ..................................................4 5 2. Available to Anyone with an Interest in the Property. 4 5 3. Compensation Limited to Actual Loss. 4 5 4. A Full Range of Remedies.........................................4 5 5. Summary.......................................................4 6 D. Specific Issues.......................................................4 7 1. Relationship with Negligence.......................................4 7 2. Third Party Interests, Defences and Representative Actions. 4 7 3. Co-owners......................................................4 8 4. Innocent Parties..................................................5 0 5. Return of Property to One Who Does Not Have an Immediate Right of Possession......................................................5 2 6. Other Issues.....................................................5 2 7. Draft Property Law Amendment Act.................................5 2 APPENDIX A TORTS (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) ACT 1977, C. 32 (UNITED KINGDOM).....................................................6 1 APPENDIX B LEGISLATION PROPOSED IN THE O.L.R.C. STUDY PAPER................7 1 APPENDIX C CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LIMITATION ACT..............8 2 A. Introduction.........................................................8 2 B. Strategy for Revising the Limitation Act...................................8 2 C. Draft Legislation. ....................................................8 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Personal Property Two separate streams of law, developed over the centuries, protect property rights. Land, for many reasons, is treated differently from personal property. The phrase “personal property” is usually used to mean all property other than land, or property affixed to land.1 The legal framework of rights and remedies relating to personal property is comprehensive. Parts of the law developed by analogy to the law of real property, but much of it is unique. B. The Common Law Actions Several actions provide remedies for wrongs relating to personal property. These actions have obscure names, reflecting their antiquity. The main ones are conversion (sometimes called trover), detinue and trespass to chattels. Related actions provide remedies in special circumstances. Even a brief look finds unexpected levels of legal complexity, the necessity for which may be questioned. How well is the law working? This Working Paper addresses these and other questions to decide whether the law needs to be changed.2 Chapter II is a straightforward description, and examination of the legal policy, of this part of the law. In this form, the discussion, like that in many texts, describes a complicated, highly technical set of legal principles but, because it accepts these principles at face value, does not really give an idea of hov strange they are from a modern perspective. Even so, when reviewing Chapter II the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part I Introduction
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1. WHY DOES THE PRESENT LAW NEED REFORM? 1.1 Our Sixth Programme of Law Reform1 recommended that “there should be a comprehensive review of the law on limitation periods with a view to its simplification and rationalisation.” We noted that the law is “uneven, uncertain and unnecessarily complex” as demonstrated by the following examples: (1) Adrian is injured when operating an unsafe electric mower. He seeks compensation for his injuries. If he sues the manufacturer in the tort of negligence, or the seller of the mower for breach of contract, he has three years from the date of the injury to bring his claim, subject to the courts’ discretion to extend time. If he sues the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (so as to avoid having to prove negligence) he has three years from the date of the injury to bring an action, subject to the court’s discretion to disapply the period; but his right of action under the 1987 Act is extinguished entirely if he does not sue within 10 years from when the mower was first bought. (2) Barbara was sexually abused by her uncle, Colin, from a young age until she was 14 years old. She is now 25 and suffers from a depressive illness and personality disorder. She has recently come to realise that her illness and disorder can be attributed to Colin’s abuse. But her action against Colin for trespass to the person will be time-barred (the limitation period being six years after she was 18).
    [Show full text]
  • IN the CIRCUIT COURT for Baltimore City
    ',E~: 1 ~ ~. a,~~ Baltimore City IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR------------------------------ CIVIL - NnN-DnMESTIC CASE INFnRM T DIRECTIONS t~ ~ ~~ ~4~ Plaintiff: This Information Report must be completed and attached to the complaintfiled with the Clerk of Court unless your case is exempted from the requirement.by t~i~'+~~a~~~u~ the~Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 2-111(a). Defendant: You must file an Information Report as required by Rule 2,323(h).: THIS INFORMATION REPpRT CANNOT~BE ACCEPTED AS A PLEADING BY:~7PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CASE NUMBER FORM FILED •--- --- ------'-- - - -f~rkto nser~------------------ Brenda Bennett, et al. University of Marylan~ ~Viec~icat System CASE vs. ----------------- NAME:------------------------- amti - ------------------~~TSe en ant PARTY'S NAME: PHONE: PARTY'S ADDRESS:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ - --- -- --- PARTY'S E-MAIL:----------- --- -------------------------------------_._____--------------------------•-------------- ~f r~~zr~sented__by an_ attorn.ey; --Ben'amin L:Davis, III - - --410 244 7005- PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S NAME:---------~_- --- _---- _ ~,_~___ PHONE:.------_--___- _--_----- -------__ ADDRESS:~6 South Charles ~freet,Baltimore, Maryland 21201 PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S bdavTs~"nicholtlaw.com"""""- PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S E-MAIL: JURY DEMAND? Yes O No RELATED CASE PENDING? L7Yes f~No If yes, Case #~s), if known:__________~_________~_~M________. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TRIAL?: ____._hours _____.__da s PLEADING TYPE New Case: Original
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Right of Privacy
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 15 Issue 4 Issue 4 - October 1962 Article 4 10-1962 Defamation and the Right of Privacy John W. Wade, Dean Vanderbilt Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Privacy Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation John W. Wade, Dean, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 1093 (1962) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol15/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defamation and the Right of Privacy JOHN W. WADE* In this article Dean Wade discusses the scope of the tort of un- warranted invasion of the right of privacy, comparing and contrasting it with the tort of defamation. He observes that the action for invasion of the right of privacy may come to supplant the action for defamation and that this development should be welcomed by the courts and writers. Finally, he concludes that the whole law of privacy may someday be- come a part of the larger, more comprehensive tort of intentional in- fliction of mental suffering. I. INTRODUOTMON The history of the two torts of defamation and unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy has been greatly different. Defamation developed over a period of many centuries, with the twin torts of libel and slander having completely separate origins and historical growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations of Actions in Conversion and Detinue
    Manitoba Law Reform Commission 432-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3L6 T 204 945-2896 F 204 948-2184 Email: [email protected] http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS IN CONVERSION AND DETINUE Report #125 November 2011 Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Manitoba. Law Reform Commission Limitations of actions in conversion and detinue. (Report ; 125) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7711-1557-8 — 1. Limitation of actions 2. Trover and conversion Manitoba 3. Time (Law)--Manitoba I. Title. II. Series: Report (Manitoba. Law Reform Commission) ; 125 KEM 484 .L54 .M35 2011 346.7127052 222 20119620014 ’s Copies of the Commission Reports may be ordered from Statutory Publications, 20 - 200 ’s Reports are also available Vaughan Street, Winnipeg, MB R3C 1T5. The Commission electronically at www.jus.gov.mb/mlrc. The Manitoba Law Reform Commission was established by The Law Reform Commission Act in 1970 and began functioning in 1971. Commissioners: Cameron Harvey, Q.C., President John C. Irvine Hon. Mr. Gerald O. Jewers Hon. Mr. Justice Perry Schulman Legal Counsel: Catherine Skinner Administrator: Debra Floyd The Commission offices are located at 432-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, MB R3C 3L6 Tel: (204) 945-2896 Fax: (204) 948-2184 Email: [email protected] Website: http://gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc The Manitoba Law Reform Commission is funded by grants from: The Government of Manitoba and The Manitoba Law Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # – CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 – CHAPTER 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CONVERSION AND DETINUE 3 A. CONVERSION 3 1. Reform of Conversion 6 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Embryo and Fetal Experimentation and Disposal in England and the United States
    VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 39 APRIL 1986 NUMBER 3 "Alas! Poor Yorick," I Knew Him Ex Utero: The Regulation of Embryo and Fetal Experimentation and Disposal in England and the United States Nicolas P. Terry* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 420 II. EXPERIMENTATION, DISPOSAL, AND THE ABORTION DE- BATE .............................................. 422 III. FETUSES AND FETAL MATERIALS: DISPOSAL ......... 426 A. Disposal-Specific Legislation .............. 427 B. Disposal-IndirectRegulation .............. 430 C. Fetus Disposal and Tort Law ............... 431 IV. FETUSES AND FETAL MATERIALS: POSSESSORY RIGHTS 432 A. Common Law Possessory Interests .......... 432 B. Possessory Interests in Nonburial Situations. 433 C. Fetal Possession-Specific Legislation ....... 437 V. FETAL EXPERIMENTATION ........................... 440 A. Definitional Problems ...................... 441 *Associate Professor of Law, St. Louis University. Formerly, Lecturer in Law, Univer- sity of Exeter, England. B.A. (Law) Kingston Polytechnic; LL.M. Cambridge. I owe a debt of gratitude to Kate Whitby, my research assistant, for her painstaking work. I would like to thank my colleagues, Isaak Dore, Stanislaw Frankowski, Sandra Johnson, and Carolyn Jones for their support and encouragement. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:419 B. Guidelines for Research in England ......... 442 C. Federally Funded Fetal Research ........... 444 D. State Regulation of Fetal Research ......... 446 E. Fetal Experimentation Regulation and Pri- vacy Guarantees..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures
    GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MANUAL CIVIL CASE PROCEDURES Page 6-1 Chapter 6 – Civil Case Procedures Introduction Civil cases are brought to enforce, redress, or protect the private rights of an individual, organization or government entity. The remedies available in a civil action include the recovery of money damages and the issuance of a court order requiring a party to the suit to complete an agreement or to refrain from some activity. The party who initiates the suit is the “plaintiff,” and the party against whom the suit is brought is the “defendant.” In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Any person who is a plaintiff in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth and a resident of the Commonwealth or a defendant in a civil action in a court of the Commonwealth, and who is on account of his poverty unable to pay fees or costs, may be allowed by the court to sue or defendant a suit therein without paying fees and costs. The person may file the DC-409, PETITION FOR PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CASE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS . In determining a person’s ability to pay fees or costs on account of his/her poverty, the court shall consider whether such person is current recipient of a state and federally funded public assistance program for the indigent or is represented by legal aid society, including an attorney appearing as counsel, pro bono or assigned or referred by legal aid society. If so, such person shall be presumed unable to pay such fees and costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of the Actions of Trespass and Trover Alfred Paul Newton Cornell Law School
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection Historical Cornell Law School 1896 Comparison of the Actions of Trespass and Trover Alfred Paul Newton Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/historical_theses Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Newton, Alfred Paul, "Comparison of the Actions of Trespass and Trover" (1896). Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection. Paper 315. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Historical Cornell Law School at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARISON OF THE ACTIONS OF TRESPASS AND TROVER, A THE SI S By, Alfred Paul Newton, Submitted for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws. Cornell University,...1896. COMPRISON OF TIE ACTIONS OF TRESPASS AND TROVER. I N T R 0 D U C T I 0 N. In an essay of this kind,which must necessa- rily be somewhat limited i# scope, it would be inex- pedient to endeavor to cover the whole field of the law of trespass or of trover, therefore the writer has di- rected his attention to the salient characteristics of each action, to those points which are most import- ant and interesting,not only from their prominence,but also from the fact that they are somewhat unsettled. It is the purpose of the writer to present a comparison of the modern actions of trespass and tro- ver as they now exist ,the distinction abolished in form, but still having some influence on the Imr and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Taming the Tort Monster: the American Civil Justice System As a Battleground of Social Theory Michael L
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 1 Article 1 9-1-2002 Taming the Tort Monster: The American Civil Justice System as a Battleground of Social Theory Michael L. Rustad Thomas H. Koenig Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig, Taming the Tort Monster: The American Civil Justice System as a Battleground of Social Theory, 68 Brook. L. Rev. 1 (2002). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol68/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. Brooklyn Law Review Volume 68 2002 Number 1 ARTICLES TAMING THE TORT MONSTER: THE AMERICAN CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A BATTLEGROUND OF SOCIAL THEORY' Michael L. Rustadt & Thomas H. Koenig* 02002 Michael L. Rustad & Thomas H. Koenig. All Rights Reserved. Michael L. Rustad is the Thomas F. Lambert Jr. Professor of Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program at Suffolk University Law School School. B.A. 1971, University of North Dakota; M.A. 1973, University of Maryland; Ph.D. 1981, Boston College; J.D. 1984, Suffolk University Law School; LL.M. 1986, Harvard University Law School. Thomas Koenig is Professor, Department of Sociology and Law, Policy and Society Doctoral Program, Northeastern University. A.B. 1971, University of California, Santa Cruz; M.A. 1973, University of California Santa Barbara; Ph.D. 1979, University of California, Santa Barbara. This article is dedicated to the memory of Thomas F.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Land Work
    73991 Cover_Cover 25/05/2011 11:54 Page 1 Law Commission Reforming the law Making Land Work: Easements, Covenants and Profits à Prendre Law Commission Making Land Work: Easements, Covenants and Profits à Prendre Easements, Covenants and Profits Making Land Work: Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Online www.tsoshop.co.uk Mail, telephone, fax and email TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/general enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, Law Com No 327 London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders/general enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other accredited agents Customers can also order publications from: TSO Ireland 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD Telephone orders/general enquiries: 028 9023 8451 Fax orders: 028 9023 5401 Law Com No 327 12529 HC 1067 Cover / sig1 plateA The Law Commission (LAW COM No 327) MAKING LAND WORK: EASEMENTS, COVENANTS AND PROFITS À PRENDRE Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 7 June 2011 HC 1067 London: The Stationery Office £37.00 © Crown copyright 2011 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Davis V. Davis and the Legal Status of Early Embryos Michael S
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 23 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 1991 1991 "Honey, I Froze the Kids": Davis v. Davis and the Legal Status of Early Embryos Michael S. Simon Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Michael S. Simon, "Honey, I Froze the Kids": Davis v. Davis and the Legal Status of Early Embryos, 23 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 131 (1991). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol23/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Honey, I Froze The Kids": Davis v. Davis and the Legal Status of Early Embryos I. INTRODUCTION On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown, the first baby conceived by us- ing in vitro fertilization ("IVF") techniques,' was born in England.2 The IVF process involves a number of steps. First, the doctor in- jects the female patient with a hormone3 to cause "hyperovula- tion,"' 4 allowing the doctor to extract a number of ovum from the woman's ovaries.5 The doctor then mixes the extracted ovum with spermatozoa and allows the mixture to develop into embryos. 6 Fi- nally, forty-eight to seventy-two hours after fertilization, the doc- 7 tor either reimplants the embryos into the uterus or cryogenically 1. " 'In vitro fertilization' means any fertilization of human ova which occurs outside the body of a female, either through admixture of donor human sperm and ova or by any other means." 45 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Res Judicata: Unsatisfied Judgement in Trover
    February, 193o RES JUDICATA: UNSATISFIED JUDGMENTS IN TROVER J. A. MCCLAIN, JR. In dealing with the problem as to what further remedy, if any, a plaintiff who holds an unsatisfied judgment in trover or trespass has against the defendant or his assignees,' there is quite a temptation to state the question in terms of "passage of title". This is largely so because the courts have habitually stated the problem in such language. This method of treatment seems un- fortunate, however, because of the elusive character of "title". 2 Analytically the problem is whether the plaintiff, after having re- covered a judgment in trover or trespass, has any further remedy against the defendant or the assignee of the defendant; or, stated in other words, does the plaintiff retain any legal relations (right to possession) concerning the chattel which are not divested from him until satisfaction of the judgment? There are many cases declaring that certain remedies claimed (trover, trespass, implied 1 While the problem involved in this discussion is confined to a specific situ- ation, yet a much larger field may be opened by extending the inquiry to deter- mine the relief generally afforded the holder of an unsatisfied judgment which demands supplementary relief if the plaintiff is to accomplish anything by his action. Hahl v. Sugo, 169 N. Y. 1O9, 62 N. E. 135 (goi); Note (1925) 34 YALE L. J. 536. If no supplementary relief is available, the question is raised whether the judgment holder, not being responsible for the situation, should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata from proceeding anew to obtain further relief.
    [Show full text]
  • Secured Creditors' Non-Statutory Remedies
    THE CANADIAN BAR REVIEW LA REVUE DU BARREAU CANADIEN Vol. 91 2012 No. 2 Secured creditorS’ NoN-Statutory remedieS: uNfiNiShed BuSiNeSS Ronald CC Cuming * When personal property collateral taken under a security agreement has been damaged, destroyed or otherwise cannot be seized, the secured party must look to remedies outside the Personal Property Security Act. In almost all cases, this will involve a traditional “property tort” action. In this article, the author examines the actions of trespass, detinue, conversion and damage to a reversionary interest and concludes that none of them provides an appropriate method of addressing damage to or loss of a secured creditor’s in rem interest in the collateral. In the balance of the article, the author proposes a new statutory remedy that interfaces with the Personal Property Security Act and reflects the limited proprietary nature of a security interest. Lorsque des biens meubles donnés en sûreté ont été endommagés, détruits ou ne peuvent, pour toute autre raison, faire l’objet d’une saisie, le créancier garanti doit se tourner vers des recours en dehors de la Loi sur les Sûretés mobilières. Dans presque tous les cas, cela comprendra une poursuite plus traditionnelle pour « délit civil contre les biens ». Dans cet article, l’auteur examine les poursuites pour atteinte directe, détention illicite, conversion et dommage causé à un intérêt réversif. Il conclut qu’aucune de ces poursuites n’offre de méthode appropriée pour traiter du dommage subi par le créancier garanti dans ces circonstances. Par la suite, il propose un nouveau recours légal ayant un lien avec la Loi sur les Sûretés mobilières et qui reflète la nature limitée du droit de propriété d’une sûreté.
    [Show full text]