> Surely also as a tort of strict liability,

> the intention of the defendant is irrelevant?

It is both a tort of strict liability and a tort which requires the

claimant to show that the defendant acted intentionally with respect to

the goods. If I unintentionally, but negligently, destroy your car I do

not commit conversion. If I intentionally but blamelessly destroy your car

(eg because I reasonably thought it mine) I have converted it.

Intention to cause harm, or to commit a wrong is, of course, irrelevant.

Rob

--

Robert Stevens

Professor of Commercial Law

University College London