9-Step Guided Lesson · ~7 min
Conversion
Did the defendant interfere with the plaintiff's personal property so seriously that the defendant must pay its full value?
這一課問的是：D 對 P 的動產干涉是否「嚴重到」必須照全額買下？conversion 等於一場「強制買賣」。
ActorActObjectStandardConsequence
What does this topic ask?
這一課問的是：D 對 P 的動產干涉是否「嚴重到」必須照全額買下？conversion 等於一場「強制買賣」。
"Conversion" really asks: Did the defendant interfere with the plaintiff's personal property so seriously that the defendant must pay its full value?
Trigger words:
tookstolesolddestroyedkeptrefused to return
5 words you must own
Tap a card to flip it.
One exam-ready rule
Conversion requires the defendant's intentional exercise of dominion over the plaintiff's chattel so serious that the defendant must pay the chattel's full value.; a minor interference is only trespass to chattels, and conversion operates in effect as a forced sale of the chattel to the defendant.
Five colored parts — always
Actor 行為人
the defendant
干涉者
Act 行為
exercising dominion
行使支配
Object 對象
P's chattel
P 之動產
Standard 法律標準
serious interference
嚴重干涉
Consequence 後果
pay the full value
支付全額
How courts illustrate this
Pearson v. Dodd
Simplified Holding
Conversion requires a serious interference with the chattel's value or use; mere copying of information from documents, without depriving the owner of the documents themselves, may not rise to conversion.
Why It Matters Here
The line between conversion and trespass to chattels turns on the seriousness of the interference, measured by whether justice requires a forced sale.
Conversion 與 trespass to chattels 的界線在干涉嚴重性。
Where learners slip
碰一下 P 的東西就是 conversion。
Must be serious interference; trivial is trespass to chattels.
須嚴重干涉；輕微是 trespass to chattels。
D 必須有「偷」的意圖。
Even good-faith taking can be conversion; key is intentional dominion.
善意誤取仍可構成；關鍵是有意支配。
Your analysis
Issue
Did D convert P's bicycle when D took it, believing it was his own, and sold it to a stranger?
Rule
Conversion requires an intentional exercise of dominion over the plaintiff's chattel so serious that the defendant must pay its full value.
Application
D took P's bicycle and sold it to a stranger, so that P can no longer recover it. Because conversion requires an serious enough to justify a forced sale, the fact that D took and resold the bicycle — permanently depriving P of it — means .
Conclusion
Therefore, D converted P's bicycle and must pay its full value.
Quick multiple-choice check
D, a friend of P, borrowed P's laptop for one weekend with permission, then kept it for six months and refused to return it. Is this conversion?
Lock it in
Tap the chips in the right order: