Abstract
Abstract The common law has long maintained that, where a defendant has tortiously interfered with a chattel that was in the claimant’s possession at the time of the wrong, the claimant is, in general, to be presumed to be the ‘absolute and complete owner’ of the chattel. It is argued in this article that the rule lacks a satisfactory justificatory basis: the justification that has been endorsed by the courts is fatally flawed, and the main alternative justifications that have been advanced in the academic literature are also unsatisfactory. If an adequate foundation cannot be found, the rule should be abolished and, if it were to be abolished, there are, it is suggested, good reasons to introduce a similar, but importantly different, rule of presumption.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
