Chapter 11Business and the law of tortOther torts relevant to business
Trespass
The tort of trespass is one of the oldest torts. It takes
three forms: trespass to the person, trespass to land and
trespass to goods. Trespass to the personcomprises
three separate actions: battery, assault and false impris-
onment. Battery is a direct and intentional application
of force against the person. The slightest touch can
amount to a battery. Assault involves putting a person in
fear of a battery. Examples include swinging a punch,
even if it does not connect, or pointing a gun at some-
body. False imprisonment consists of unlawfully re-
straining a person from going wherever he or she wants,
e.g. unlawful detention by a store detective who mis-
takenly believes that a customer has been shoplifting.
Trespass to landcan be defined as unlawful interfer-
ence with the possession of someone’s land. Straying
off a footpath is an example of trespass to land. Trespass
to goodsis the wrongful interference with a person’s
possession of goods. This tort may be committed by
destroying another’s goods, stealing or simply moving
them from one place to another.Conversion
The tort of conversion involves doing some act in
relation to another’s goods which is inconsistent with
the other’s right to the goods. The wrongful act must
constitute a challenge to, or a denial of, the claimant’s
title to the goods. Examples of conversion include
stealing goods and reselling them, wrongfully refusing to
return goods or destroying them. Conversion is one
aspect of the tort of trespass to goods: both are examples
of wrongful interference with goods which is now sub-
ject to legislation in the shape of the Torts (Interference
with Goods) Act 1977.Nuisance
There are two kinds of nuisance: public and private.
Public nuisance (an act or omission which causes
discomfort or inconvenience to a class of Her Majesty’s
subjects) is essentially a crime. However, individuals
who have been particularly affected by the nuisance may
bring an action in tort. Polluting a river could amount
to a public nuisance. In two recent cases the House
of Lords has signalled the death knell of the common
law crime of public nuisance (Rv Rimmington,Rv
Goldstein(2006)). Although their Lordships did not
believe that it was open to them to abolish the common
law crime of public nuisance (only Parliament could do
this), they recognised that most kinds of conduct cov-
ered by the common law were now subject to statutory
provisions, such as the Environmental Protection Act347to the council for a mortgage. They filled in an applica-
tion and paid £22 for a valuation to be carried out. The
application form contained a disclaimer which stated
that the valuation was confidential and intended solely
for the benefit of the council and no responsibility was
accepted for the value and condition of the house.
Applicants were advised to obtain their own survey. The
council instructed its own in-house surveyor to inspect
the property. He valued the house at the asking price
and recommended a mortgage, subject to minor condi-
tions. When the claimants tried to sell the house three
years later, they discovered that it was subject to settle-
ment and, as a result, the property was unsaleable. The
House of Lords found in favour of the claimants and
awarded them £12,000. Their Lordships held that a val-
uer owes a duty to purchasers to exercise reasonable
care in carrying out a valuation. Furthermore, the dis-
claimer contained in the application form was ineffective
under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 since it did
not satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. It was not
fair and reasonable for valuers to impose on purchasers
the risk of loss arising as a result of their incompetence
or carelessness for the following reasons:
1 the parties were not of equal bargaining strength (the
disclaimer was imposed on the claimants and they
had no real power to object);
2 it was not reasonably practicable for the claimants to
have obtained their own survey report (they were first-
time buyers who could not easily afford to pay twice
for the same service);
3 the task undertaken by the surveyor was not particu-
larly difficult and it was not unreasonable to expect a
valuer to take responsibility for the fairly elementary
degree of skill and care involved; and
4 surveyors will carry insurance. If they are denied the
opportunity of excluding their liability, insurance pre-
miums will rise and the increased costs will be passed
on to house purchasers in higher fees. It was fairer
that the risk be distributed among all house pur-
chasers by a modest increase in fees rather than the
whole risk falling on one unlucky purchaser.