Utah 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.

Utah Instruction to Jury — Refusal to Deliver Goods after Demand and Tender of Freight and Storage Charges Can Constitute Conversion In Utah, the courts provide specific instructions to juries regarding situations where refusal to deliver goods, despite the demand and tender of freight and storage charges, can be considered as conversion. Conversion refers to the unauthorized assumption or interference with another party's property rights. This instruction helps the jury understand the legal implications associated with such actions. Under Utah law, there are two types of instructions that can be given to the jury in cases involving the refusal to deliver goods: 1. General Instruction: In cases where a demand to deliver goods has been made and the party refuses to do so even after the tender of freight and storage charges, the jury may consider this as evidence of conversion. Conversion occurs when the party wrongfully exercises control over another person's property, depriving them of their rights without consent. 2. Specific Instruction — Consideration Factors: The court may also provide a specific instruction to the jury, outlining the factors they should consider when determining whether refusal to deliver goods constitutes conversion: a) Demand and Tender: The jury should evaluate whether a demand to deliver goods was properly made, and if the party refusing to deliver was aware of such demand. Additionally, the jury should consider whether the proper freight and storage charges were tendered to the party. b) Unauthorized Control: The jury must assess whether the party refusing to deliver goods exercised unauthorized control over the property. This includes actions such as withholding the goods, preventing access to them, or denying ownership rights. c) Intent: The jury should analyze the intent of the party refusing to deliver goods. If there is evidence suggesting that the refusal was deliberate and intentional, it strengthens the case for conversion. d) Good Faith: The jury is also instructed to consider whether the party refusing delivery acted in good faith. If there was a legitimate reason, such as a dispute over payment or ownership, it may impact the conversion claim. e) Damages: Finally, the jury should evaluate the damages suffered by the party seeking delivery of goods. This includes any financial losses, the value of the goods, and any additional harm caused by the refusal. By providing these instructions, Utah courts aim to ensure that juries are equipped with the necessary knowledge to assess cases involving the refusal to deliver goods. These instructions help guide the jury's decision-making process based on established legal principles and considerations specific to each case.