Torts Relating to Movable Property — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. In Armory v. Delamirie (1722), the court held that a finder of a lost item:

   • Has no legal right over it at all
   • Has a possessory title good against everyone except the true owner (correct answer)
   • Automatically becomes the true owner
   • Can only claim the item back within 24 hours

   Explanation. A finder's possession is good against everyone except someone with a better title, such as the true owner.

2. Why did the court in Armory v. Delamirie award damages assessed at the highest possible value of the jewel?

   • The defendant admitted the jewel's exact value
   • The defendant did not produce the jewel, so the jury was told to presume the strongest against him (correct answer)
   • The court always assumes the highest possible value in every case
   • The claimant provided a receipt for the jewel

   Explanation. The Chief Justice directed that, unless the defendant produced the jewel and showed it was not of the finest water, the jury should presume the strongest against him.

3. What distinguishes conversion from trespass to goods?

   • There is no real difference between them
   • Conversion is a serious interference denying the owner's rights altogether, while trespass to goods is a direct but less severe interference with possession (correct answer)
   • Trespass to goods is more serious than conversion
   • Conversion can only be committed by a court order

   Explanation. Conversion involves treating goods as one's own to such an extent that it denies the owner's rights entirely, whereas trespass to goods is a more limited direct interference.

4. Which of the following would most likely amount to conversion?

   • Briefly moving someone's bicycle out of the way without damaging it
   • Selling someone else's goods left with you for repair, without their consent (correct answer)
   • Accidentally brushing against another person's bag
   • Returning borrowed goods slightly late

   Explanation. Selling goods that belong to someone else, without their consent, treats them as one's own to dispose of — a classic act of conversion.

5. Is trespass to goods actionable without proof of actual loss?

   • No, financial loss must always be proved
   • Yes, it is actionable even without proof of loss, though damages will usually be nominal absent real harm (correct answer)
   • Only if the goods are permanently destroyed
   • Only in criminal proceedings

   Explanation. Trespass to goods is actionable per se, similar to trespass to land, though nominal damages are typical where no real harm resulted.