Talk:Conversion (law)

Untitled[edit]

I don't think that the comparison with Trespass to chattels is correct. The difference (in my understanding) is that TTC requires that the owner be in possession at the time the chattel is interfered with. However with conversion, possession is not necessary, there only needs to be an immediate right to possession. Eg. I lend you my bike for a week and you destroy it, as soon as I have a right to get it back a week later I can sue you in conversion, but I can't sue you in TTC b/c I didn't have possession at the time. However, if I kept my bike in the garage and you came over and destroyed it, I could sue you either in TTC or conversion. PullUpYourSocks 22:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, this page says nothing about which legal systems or jurisdictions it is describing, witout which it is of limited use. <small gnatures|unsigned]] comment added by 82.6.99.21 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but I came here because supposedly it's one of the claims FedEx is trying to use to get FedExFurniture.com pulled (that site being a personal website about how this one cash-strapped guy furnishes his apartment using FedEx boxes to make his furniture out of, and being an apparently non-commercial site). I still don't understand how "conversion" legally applies to this (I'm pretty sure he obtained the boxes by either buying them or getting stuff FedExed to him). Part of the reason I don't get the (alleged) connection is actually that this article needs a "plain language" explanation. To most people who aren't in the law profession or studying it, I don't think it would necessarily be all that clear what, when, where and to whom this applies to. 4.238.8.243 18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it refers rather to American law and is no correct statement of English law! Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detinue#England_and_Wales --129.67.116.167 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page is about a specific term, used in law, I moved it to the page with the simple title of conversion, and put a empiricalwill reward each person according to what they have done.”need to sign the home loan and agree to repay the mortgage if the primary occupan link to pages for other uses. Wik idea 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of moving it back. Almost all of the links to conversion were not about this subject. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd prefer you didn't. There is nothing wrong with people being able to find what they want through the disambiguation. This is a major topic for lawyers, and it's a very well written page. The other uses of conversion are not as important. Wik idea 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dispute that other uses of "conversion" are not much more common and important, but in any case, the main problem was that convert and converted redirected to conversion. Now they redirect to religious conversion, which fixed almost all of the links. Some remaining links, for example those intended to be conversion (marketing), I fixed individually. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, why is the Talk page duplicated (Talk:Conversion and Talk:Conversion (law)? One should be deleted. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, yes, you really shouldn't have convert and converted go to this smelly old law page! Sorry I didn't change that. Don't know about this page. Maybe just delete it? I think I put the important stuff on the other talk page already. :) Wik idea 13:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added a speedy deletion template. 90.201.173.161 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International perspective[edit]

This article is primarily written from a US perspective, e.g. almost all of the cited case law (outside of the History section) are to US cases, and the general articles are almost all in US publications (Harvard Law Review, Cornell Law Quarterly or American Law Review for the most part). A more worldwide perspective is required. I've tagged the article appropriately. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation is inaccurate, since I wrote this article in conjunction with a London based-law school professor. In fact, he wrote much of the article and asked me to add a US perspective. He was satisfied with the final article. You are certainly welcome to add appropriate case illustrations from other jurisdictions, if you wish to do so. A E Francis (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the observation is indeed accurate. I looked at the article and the references and was also concerned that it was written from a US perspective. I came to the talk page to see if there had been any discussion of the issue. I think that the article would benefit from additional cases from other common law countries. --ErnstR (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, then, add some cases from international law. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing so.A E Francis (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't have the knowledge to add international case law / statutes to this article, the practice and procedure section is clearly US based and may not apply in other jurisdictions; tagged appropriately. 94.195.106.167 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the knowledge to add international case law, why are you making a judgment about it? As noted supra, this article was written in conjunction with a London based law school professor. In fact, he was the one who initiated the article. I am tired of people who apply tags without knowing what they are tagging. If you have knowledge of international cases, then post them. But don't place a tag on something, just because you have a "gut feeling" about things. A E Francis (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very wrong[edit]

What I hate about this article and some others in the legal realm is that there is a lot of mixture between UK and US laws. I can tell that the article jumps back and forth between the two major legal systems. But most readers will not be able to distinguish what applies and what does not. It would be nice if specific examples were kept out of the sections that are general in nature. The two legal systems diverged long enough ago that the differences are glaring. Unlike 19th century publications, I doubt too many books would try to combine the two systems now except by making distinct points of any differences. The Wikipedia is not making this distinction here. I would drop the rating, too. I like to saw logs! (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, this is a terrible problem with all the legal articles. Terminology also varies between the Commonwealth and US laws. At the least some distinctions that matter in each area need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Does anyone find the illustrations in the article patronising and silly? For example, there is a picture of some cows, with the caption "Animals can be converted if they are removed, co-mingled, or injured." Um, yes, we know that cows are an example of animals, and we know what cows look like. Similarly the pictures of corn, trees and so on.

There is a picture of a man with a mustache apparently speaking into a microphone, with the caption "In an action for conversion, as with all tort cases, witness testimony is important to establish the facts." It's not obvious that the person is a witness nor even that they are participating in a court case. Why do we need an illustration for what amounts to the word "witness"?

Can they be removed? MrDemeanour (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But men with mustaches are more trusted, right? They're like firemen and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate interface[edit]

Mention of real estate required directing readers to other articles about possession of land, and legal implications, i.e. adverse possession. The comment that personal property might be buildings or grain elevators was useful but again only US sources, and the key distinction (lex situs) regarding jurisdiction was ignored. I tried to frame that as best I could - when linking to other heavily detailed and sourced articles on basic legal concepts I don't think we need dozens of case law citations, those are in the articles sourced. If you think my account varies from what you read in those articles, by all means, copyedit away, use of terms like "movables" and tests for these may well vary extremely widely by jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]