Conversion may be committed in the following ways:

1) By taking. Where A takes chattels out of the possession of B (the true owner) without lawful justification with the intention of exercising dominion over the goods permanently or even temporarily. Every simple theft, as where X steals Y’s jacket, is a conversion. Mere shifting the goods of another, as where a station-porter puts suitcases at the side of a railway platform, may be trespass but not conversion.

2) By detention. Where A detains goods of B in defiance of B’s right to the chattels, B may sue in conversion.

3) By wrongful delivery. If A without lawful justification delivers B’s goods to C (a stranger), A is liable in conversion. Similarly, if a bailee of goods sells them before the period of the bailment has expired, the bailee is rendered liable in conversion.

4) By destruction. The wilful and unlawful destruction of another’s goods amounts to conversion. There must be a complete destruction, mere damage of goods being insufficient.

37) What is defamation?

Defamation is the publication of a statement which exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt or causes them to be shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society generally. In other words it is a ‘false statement about a person to their discredit’. There are two classes of defamation:

1) Libel, which is a statement made in permanent form, and

2) Slander, which is a statement in transitory form.

The permanent form, as far as libel is concerned, may be in a written or printed statement, an effigy, a statue, a caricature, or a film. The transitory form, as far as slander is concerned, is usually by speech or gesture. Two further distinctions may be drawn. Libel, if it tends to a breach of the peace, is a crime. Slander, as such, is not a crime. Thirdly, libel is actionable per se, i.e. on mere publication, and the claimant need not show that any pecuniary loss has been suffered following the libel. In slander the claimant must prove actual damage (i.e., financial loss) except in the following cases:

1) Imputation of any crime that is punishable by imprisonment.

2) Imputation that the claimant is suffering from a contagious disease rendering the person so infected liable to be excluded from society, e.g. venereal disease.

3) Imputation of unchastity in a woman. This includes lesbianism.

4) Imputation of unfitness for any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by the claimant at the time of the publication.

38) What is defamation by innuendo?

One special form of defamation which needs particular mention is innuendo. Although words may not on the face of them appear defamatory, they may nevertheless be such by reason of peculiar surrounding circumstances or facts, or because a special meaning is attributable to them. There is, we may say, a hidden meaning or implication, possibly more telling and harmful in its effect than a bold and obvious statement. In such cases, the plaintiff who alleges defamation by innuendo must show that the facts were known to the person to whom the defamatory statement was made, and that reasonable persons would interpret the words used as defamatory. To say ‘A drinks a lot’ is ambiguous: it may be a harmless statement, or it may insinuate that A is a heavy drinker of intoxicants and may, in certain circumstances, be defamatory.

39) Describe the difference between publication, repetition and dissemination.

The repetition of a defamatory statement orally, or in writing, is a fresh ‘publication’. It is no defence in such cases to plead that the person who repeats the statement did not originate it. Repetition is highly relevant to the Press. Where a book or newspaper article is defamatory, the printer and the publisher are each liable as well as the author. Subsidiary distributors such as booksellers and newsvendors are not liable, however, if they can prove the following points. The distributor must show that:

1) It was not known that the statement was libellous;

2) There were no circumstances which ought to have given rise to the suspicion that the book or paper was libellous; and

3) The lack of knowledge was not due to negligence.

The Defamation Act, 1996 created a new statutory defence which modifies these common law rules relating to innocent dissemination. The Act extends the common law defence of innocent dissemination to secondary publishers such as printers, broadcasters of live television programmes, communication network service operators and computer systems providers. The burden of proof would be on them to prove that they had no reason to know or believe that the publication was defamatory and had taken reasonable care in relation to publication. The previous record of the publishers in publishing defamatory material would also be taken into account.

Publication consists in making known in writing, or orally, or in other form, to some person other than the claimant.