|
|
|
xi | |
|
|
|
xix | |
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
I The Focus on the Law of Torts |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
II The Proposed Structure |
|
|
3 | (6) |
|
PART I THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CHATTEL TORTS |
|
|
|
2 Property Rights Relating to Chattels |
|
|
9 | (10) |
|
|
|
9 | (5) |
|
A Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam |
|
|
9 | (3) |
|
B Personal Rights and the Chattel Torts |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
|
|
16 | (3) |
|
3 Types of Property Rights |
|
|
19 | (30) |
|
|
|
20 | (10) |
|
|
|
21 | (3) |
|
B Relativity of Ownership |
|
|
24 | (3) |
|
|
|
27 | (3) |
|
|
|
30 | (3) |
|
|
|
33 | (3) |
|
|
|
36 | (3) |
|
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
B Non-possessory Security |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
|
|
39 | (9) |
|
A The Position of Beneficiaries Suing in the Chattel Torts |
|
|
40 | (4) |
|
B Proprietary Status of an Equitable Interest |
|
|
44 | (4) |
|
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
PART II LIABILITY FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCES WITH CHATTELS |
|
|
49 | (90) |
|
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
|
|
51 | (27) |
|
I Historical Development of Conversion |
|
|
51 | (10) |
|
|
|
52 | (3) |
|
|
|
55 | (6) |
|
II Features of the Modern Action |
|
|
61 | (16) |
|
A Conversion's Status as a Tort |
|
|
62 | (2) |
|
B The Basis of Liability in Conversion |
|
|
64 | (13) |
|
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
|
|
78 | (18) |
|
|
|
78 | (12) |
|
A Orthodox View: A Detention |
|
|
79 | (5) |
|
B Alternative Approach: Careless Loss |
|
|
84 | (5) |
|
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
II The Abolition of Detinue |
|
|
90 | (4) |
|
|
|
94 | (2) |
|
|
|
96 | (19) |
|
I Historical Development of Trespass |
|
|
97 | (7) |
|
A Origins of the `Directness' Requirement |
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
B The Meaning of `Directness' |
|
|
99 | (2) |
|
C The Relevance of the Defendant's Mental State |
|
|
101 | (3) |
|
II The Emergence of the Modern Tort of Trespass |
|
|
104 | (10) |
|
A From `Direct' to `Intentional' Interference |
|
|
105 | (6) |
|
B The Meaning of `Intentional Interference' in Trespass |
|
|
111 | (3) |
|
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
|
|
115 | (24) |
|
I Common Features of the Three Torts |
|
|
116 | (7) |
|
|
|
116 | (4) |
|
B The Standard of Liability |
|
|
120 | (3) |
|
II Calls for the Formal Recognition of the Single Tort |
|
|
123 | (3) |
|
A The 18th Report: Calls for a Single Tort |
|
|
123 | (2) |
|
B The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
III Justifying the Structure of the Chattel Torts |
|
|
126 | (11) |
|
A Historical Explanations for Strict Liability |
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
B Modern Theories of Strict Liability |
|
|
129 | (8) |
|
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
PART III LIABILITY FOR UNINTENTIONAL INTERFERENCES WITH CHATTELS |
|
|
139 | (46) |
|
|
|
139 | (2) |
|
8 Introduction to the Tort of Negligence |
|
|
141 | (18) |
|
I Historical Development of Negligence |
|
|
141 | (4) |
|
|
|
142 | (1) |
|
B Re-orientation of Case from `Indirect' to `Negligent' |
|
|
143 | (2) |
|
II The Basis of Liability: `Interference' or `Damage'? |
|
|
145 | (13) |
|
A The Meaning of `Damage' |
|
|
146 | (4) |
|
B `Interference' as the Basis of Liability |
|
|
150 | (8) |
|
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
9 Establishing `Duty' and `Fault' in Negligence |
|
|
159 | (26) |
|
I An Additional Requirement of Proving Duty? |
|
|
160 | (8) |
|
|
|
161 | (2) |
|
B The Role of Policy in Chattel Cases: The Nicholas H |
|
|
163 | (5) |
|
|
|
168 | (14) |
|
|
|
169 | (2) |
|
B Justifying the Need for Fault |
|
|
171 | (5) |
|
C Establishing Fault in Chattel Cases |
|
|
176 | (6) |
|
|
|
182 | (3) |
|
PART IV APPLYING THE STRUCTURE TO REMEDIES |
|
|
185 | (24) |
|
|
|
187 | (19) |
|
|
|
188 | (10) |
|
A Assessment of Damages in the Intentional Chattel Torts |
|
|
189 | (6) |
|
B Assessment of Damages in the Tort of Negligence |
|
|
195 | (3) |
|
|
|
198 | (6) |
|
A Causation of Loss in the Intentional Chattel Torts |
|
|
199 | (2) |
|
B Causation of Loss in the Tort of Negligence |
|
|
201 | (2) |
|
C Justifying the Different Approaches to Causation of Loss |
|
|
203 | (1) |
|
|
|
204 | (2) |
|
|
|
206 | (3) |
| Bibliography |
|
209 | (8) |
| Index |
|
217 | |