Defense and Recapture of Chattels

DEFENSE AND RECAPTURE OF CHATTELS Introduction Under common law a defendant is afforded the right to a limited and reasonable force to recapture or retake chattels which have been have been wrongly taken ,interfered with or withheld from the rightful owner of the property.Tresspass to chattel is the intentional and unlawful use of movable personal property in the event causing the person who possess proprietary rights of the chattel significant or perpetual dispossession and/or deprivation of use or damage as to the condition ,quality or value of the chattel. Elements of trespass to chattel are; Intent to trespass, the trespass done minus the consent of the chattel owner and interference of chattel. For an action of trespass to chattel to be successful, the plaintiff need to prove these three element.Defenses of trespass to chattels are; valid consent obtained from the owner of the chattel, public necessity, and private necessity and privileged invasion to reclaim personal property. It is important to note, however, that consent will be invalidated if it was induced by fraud or was given by someone who lacks the capacity to give consent for example consent given by a minor. Recapture of chattels Courts under common law have afforded owners of chattels to use force in the recaption of chattels taken from his immediate possession by either fraud or force, but the use of force by the chattel owner in the process of recapture ought to be reasonable and not one to cause grave bodily harm or death.1In the case of Watson v. Rinderknecht, if the right of possession of the chattel is in dispute then the use of force in recapture of chattels is not necessary but civil remedies will offer last resort in such a situation and not use of force.2Another key plank in the recapture of chattels is what is to be regarded as excessive force, courts have been known to afford wide latitude to the chattel owner to exercise as much force as to accomplish the recapture of chattel from the tortfeasor.3In the case of Commonwealth v. Donahue the court holding was that that the defendant rightfully thought he was defrauded when the victim took the money then demanded more. Thus, the defendant was entitled to use reasonable force to reclaim his property. It further held that the defendant was entitled to a determination of whether the force was excessive under the circumstances. It is therefore imperative to note that when the invasion or dispossession of a chattel is characterized by a serious threat of bodily harm then the force in recapture of that particular chattel should be directly proportionate to the threat of dispossession. 1 RESTATTEMENT,TORTS, sec 101 and sec 106 2 Watson v. Rinderknecht(1802) 3 Commonwealth v. Donahue (1889) This means that if party X disposes party Y of his brand new 2020 Mercedes-AMG by using an automatic gun as a threat to harm, then Y is at liberty to use as much force as possible against Party X in recapture of the car but if it was disputatious who between X and Y has the right to ownership of the car then both parties will seek resort of the civil courts. The following circumstances affords the person who has proprietary rights to the chattel to use force in case he is deprived of the chattel; the recapture of the chattel to be effected promptly, submission of a request for the return of the chattel prior to forceful recapture, the chattel taken either by use of fraud or force or false claim to ownership right, the owner of the chattel must have been in possession of the chattel and the chattel owner must be entitled to immediate recapture of the dispossessed chattel.4 The issue of recapture of chattel in fresh pursuit was demonstrated in the case of Hodgeden v. Hubbard,5 where the court held that the defendant was privileged to use force that was as reasonable as necessary if the plaintiff taking of such chattel was due to fraudulent means and the ensuing pursuit by the defendant was prompt. Remedies and protection of possessory rights in recapture of chattels Peace in a society is generally paramount and breach of peace even in pursuit of recapture of chattel is frowned upon, but most common law courts have developed propensity of being tolerant of use of force in recapture of chattels compared to continental legal system courts. Remedies of for unlawful interference with chattels are damages to the aggrieved party, injunctions and action for recovery of the chattel. The common denominator in these remedies is protection of possessory rights, thus where the right to recapture a chattel exists that right is not just strictly limited to the owner of the chattel in question but also is extended to the person who is entitled with the possession of the chattel. Thus a Bailee or any other individual with possessory title to a chattel may recapture the chattel from a tortfeasor who had had forcefully or fraudulently took possession of the chattel. For example in scenarios where the rights of possession and ownership of a particular chattel is vested exclusively in a different person than the owner, then the rights in the recapture of the chattel lies with the person vested with the possession rights and the owner of the chattel is excluded. A classic example of this scenario is a bailment of fixed term, but for the expiry of the fixed term the owner of the chattel is not entitled in the recapture of the chattel. Thus it is the bailee who has the right to instigate action in recapture of the chattel and not the bailor. The bailee has the possibility of suing the bailor, if it is the bailor who infringes the bailee possessionary rights to the chattel. 4 Branston, The Forcible Recaption of Chattels (Revised Edition L.Q 1912) 5 Hodgeden v. Hubbard (1846)