Hawaii Instruction to Jury that Refusal to Deliver Goods after Demand and Tender of Freight and Storage Charges can Constitute Conversion

• Category: Civil Procedure - Jury Instructions - Conversions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-01358BG
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

A trespass to personal property is the use of someone's property without person. A conversion occurs when personal property is taken by a defendant and kept from its true owner without permission of the owner. Conversion is the civil side of the crime of theft. Hawaii Instruction to Jury: Refusal to Deliver Goods after Demand and Tender of Freight and Storage Charges Constituting Conversion Keywords: Hawaii, instruction to jury, refusal to deliver goods, demand, tender, freight charges, storage charges, conversion Introduction: Hawaii Instruction to Jury provides guidance on determining whether a refusal to deliver goods after a demand and tender of freight and storage charges constitutes conversion. Conversion refers to the wrongful exercise of control over another party's property, depriving the owner of their rights. In the context of freight and storage charges, a refusal to deliver goods can be considered conversion under certain circumstances. 1. Elements of Conversion: The Hawaii Instruction to Jury for conversion cases involving refusal to deliver goods after demand and tender of freight and storage charges may include the following elements: — Wrongful withholding of goods: The defendant, typically a carrier or a storage facility, wrongfully withholds the goods without lawful authority. — Demand for delivery: The plaintiff, the owner of the goods, must have made a demand for delivery. — Tender of freight and storage charges: The plaintiff must have tendered the required freight and storage charges to the defendant. — Owner's right to immediate possession: The owner must have a right to immediate possession of the goods. 2. Instances where Conversion may be Established: a) Unjustifiable refusal despite meeting all requirements: If the plaintiff has complied with all contractual obligations, including payment of freight and storage charges, and the defendant still refuses to deliver the goods without lawful justification, it may constitute conversion. b) Unauthorized lien or excessive charges: If the defendant asserts an unauthorized lien or demands excessive charges beyond what is reasonable, and the plaintiff complies with those demands unwillingly, the refusal to deliver the goods may amount to conversion. c) Failure to comply with statutory requirements: If the defendant, as a carrier or storage facility, fails to comply with statutory obligations governing the delivery of goods and unjustifiably withholds them even after demand and tender of charges, it may constitute conversion. d) Intent to assert ownership over the goods: If the defendant overtly asserts ownership or control over the goods despite the rightful owner's demand for delivery and tender of charges, it can be deemed as conversion. 3. Possible Additional Instructions: The Hawaii Instruction to Jury may include further guidance depending on the specific circumstances, such as: — If the defendant alleges an insufficiency of tendered charges, the jury must evaluate whether the charges were reasonable and in compliance with the terms of the agreement. — If the defendant claims a legal right to withhold the goods, the jury must assess the validity of such a right and determine whether it justifies the refusal to deliver. — If the defendant disputes the sufficiency of the demand for delivery made by the plaintiff, the jury should consider whether the demand was clear, unambiguous, and in accordance with the contractual requirements. Conclusion: In Hawaii, a refusal to deliver goods after demand and tender of freight and storage charges may constitute conversion when certain elements are met. The Hawaii Instruction to Jury provides essential guidance in assessing such cases, helping jurors determine if the defendant's actions were tortious and whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for conversion.

Hawaii Instruction to Jury: Refusal to Deliver Goods after Demand and Tender of Freight and Storage Charges Constituting Conversion Keywords: Hawaii, instruction to jury, refusal to deliver goods, demand, tender, freight charges, storage charges, conversion Introduction: Hawaii Instruction to Jury provides guidance on determining whether a refusal to deliver goods after a demand and tender of freight and storage charges constitutes conversion. Conversion refers to the wrongful exercise of control over another party's property, depriving the owner of their rights. In the context of freight and storage charges, a refusal to deliver goods can be considered conversion under certain circumstances. 1. Elements of Conversion: The Hawaii Instruction to Jury for conversion cases involving refusal to deliver goods after demand and tender of freight and storage charges may include the following elements: — Wrongful withholding of goods: The defendant, typically a carrier or a storage facility, wrongfully withholds the goods without lawful authority. — Demand for delivery: The plaintiff, the owner of the goods, must have made a demand for delivery. — Tender of freight and storage charges: The plaintiff must have tendered the required freight and storage charges to the defendant. — Owner's right to immediate possession: The owner must have a right to immediate possession of the goods. 2. Instances where Conversion may be Established: a) Unjustifiable refusal despite meeting all requirements: If the plaintiff has complied with all contractual obligations, including payment of freight and storage charges, and the defendant still refuses to deliver the goods without lawful justification, it may constitute conversion. b) Unauthorized lien or excessive charges: If the defendant asserts an unauthorized lien or demands excessive charges beyond what is reasonable, and the plaintiff complies with those demands unwillingly, the refusal to deliver the goods may amount to conversion. c) Failure to comply with statutory requirements: If the defendant, as a carrier or storage facility, fails to comply with statutory obligations governing the delivery of goods and unjustifiably withholds them even after demand and tender of charges, it may constitute conversion. d) Intent to assert ownership over the goods: If the defendant overtly asserts ownership or control over the goods despite the rightful owner's demand for delivery and tender of charges, it can be deemed as conversion. 3. Possible Additional Instructions: The Hawaii Instruction to Jury may include further guidance depending on the specific circumstances, such as: — If the defendant alleges an insufficiency of tendered charges, the jury must evaluate whether the charges were reasonable and in compliance with the terms of the agreement. — If the defendant claims a legal right to withhold the goods, the jury must assess the validity of such a right and determine whether it justifies the refusal to deliver. — If the defendant disputes the sufficiency of the demand for delivery made by the plaintiff, the jury should consider whether the demand was clear, unambiguous, and in accordance with the contractual requirements. Conclusion: In Hawaii, a refusal to deliver goods after demand and tender of freight and storage charges may constitute conversion when certain elements are met. The Hawaii Instruction to Jury provides essential guidance in assessing such cases, helping jurors determine if the defendant's actions were tortious and whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for conversion.