Law of Torts II CASES – Interference with goods (Lecture 4)

Law of Torts II CASES – Interference with goods (Lecture 4)

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Law of Torts II CASES – Interference with goods (Lecture 4) Trespass to goods: Title to sue: Penfold’s Wines v Elliot (1946) 74 CLR 204 FACTS: o P sold wine in bottles embossed with words ‘This bottle is the property of Penfolds Wines Ltd’ o Elliot’s brother brought him two empty bottles; Elliot filled the bottles with wine and sold them, thus acting as a third party between the P and D. ISSUE: o Was there a trespass to goods? HELD: o Trespass is a wrong to possession, not ownership. As Elliot was in possession of the bottles, in filling them with wine, he did not commit a trespass. o In relation to whether there existed a bailment (which would give rise to one of the exceptions against the requirement for actual possession). The D argued that he had obtained the bottles from his brother and others with their consent. He did not violate their possession in any way. He had their authority to use them as he in fact did. Therefore, as there was no trespass against the brother and other customers, there was no trespass against the P, even if by the terms of the original bailment the P had an immediate right to possession.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

Law of Torts II CASES – Interference with goods (Lecture 4)

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online