⚡ 10-Second Rule
Mess with someone's thing so seriously that fairness makes you pay its full price.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Ella takes Finn's bike from his yard without asking. If she rides once around the block and returns it scratched, she owes for the scratch. If she keeps it a month, or sinks it in the pond, that's different. Now she has basically bought the bike. She owes Finn the bike's whole price, and she keeps the wreck. That forced deal is the heart of conversion.
⚖️ Actual Rule
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A(1) (paraphrased), conversion means deliberately taking over someone's personal property so completely that fairness demands a forced sale: the interference with the owner's rights is severe enough that the right remedy is making the defendant buy the item at its full value. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 222A(2) lists the seriousness factors, which include the extent and duration of the actor's control, his intent to assert a right inconsistent with the owner's, his good faith, the extent and duration of the resulting interference, the harm done to the chattel, and the inconvenience and expense caused. The line from trespass to chattels is one of degree: minor interference is trespass to chattels, remedied by damages for the actual harm and loss of use, while serious interference is conversion, remedied by a forced sale — the full fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion, with the converter keeping the chattel. The owner may instead seek replevin to recover the item itself. The only intent required is intent to exercise control; good faith and mistake about ownership are no defense. So a buyer of stolen goods, however innocent and however fair the price, is a converter, because a thief passes no title and the buyer's dominion is totally inconsistent with the owner's rights. By contrast, a seller who was tricked into parting with goods by fraud conveys voidable title, and a bona fide purchaser for value from the defrauder takes good title and commits no conversion. Traditionally only tangible personal property can be converted, though documents that embody rights — checks, promissory notes, stock certificates — qualify.
ELI-10 translation: Big meddling means a forced sale — pay the whole price. Small meddling means pay for the dent. Saying "I didn't know" doesn't help.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Did the defendant intend to exercise control? (She only needs to mean the taking, not any wrongdoing.)
- Was the interference serious? (Weigh how long, how much harm, how much bother, how bold the claim.)
- Trespass to chattels or conversion? (A dent means a repair bill; destruction or long keeping means the full price.)
- Did the defendant buy stolen goods? (Buying from a thief, even innocently, is converting.)
- Theft or fraud upstream? (Thieves pass no title; tricked sellers pass shaky title that an innocent buyer can keep.)
- What remedy fits? (Full market value at the time of conversion, or demand the thing itself back.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners present an innocent purchaser who paid fair value for a chattel without any reason to know it was stolen, then offer good faith as a defense to the owner's conversion claim. It is not one: intent to exercise dominion is the only intent required, and a purchase from a thief asserts complete dominion over property the seller never owned.
ELI-10: Being fooled is not a defense. If the thing traces back to a thief, the honest buyer still ends up paying the true owner.
🧪 Question
A violinist kept a vintage violin, with a fair market value of $20,000, in her locked studio. A burglar stole the violin and sold it to a collector, who paid $19,500 for it after examining forged ownership papers that gave him no reason to suspect the sale. When the violinist located the violin six months later and demanded its return, the collector refused, insisting that his purchase was valid. The violinist sued the collector for conversion.
What is the most likely result?
(A) The collector is not liable, because he purchased in good faith, for fair value, and without notice of the theft. (B) The collector is liable for the violin's full market value, because a purchaser from a thief acquires no title and his dominion seriously interferes with the owner's rights. (C) The collector is liable only for the violinist's loss of use, because he preserved the violin in excellent condition. (D) The collector is not liable, because the violinist's remedy lies exclusively against the burglar.
Answer: (B). The burglar had no title to pass, so the collector's purchase, possession, and refusal to return the violin assert complete dominion inconsistent with the violinist's ownership. His good faith is no defense; the interference is total, so he owes the forced-sale remedy — the violin's full value.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) treats good faith as a defense, but conversion requires only intent to exercise control, which the collector plainly had.
- (C) grades the claim as trespass to chattels; buying, keeping, and refusing to return a chattel is total, not minor, interference.
- (D) invents an exhaustion requirement; the owner may sue any converter in the chain, including the innocent end buyer.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking honesty cleans the deal. A stolen thing stays the owner's, no matter how fairly the buyer paid.
