| 单词 | Trespass to chattels |
| 释义 | 對實產的侵犯 An unlawful and direct physical interference by the defendant with goods in the possession of the plaintiff: Srivastava & Tennekone The Law of Tort in Hong Kong (Butterworths, 1995) p 69. The interference must be intentional or negligent for it to constitute a trespass: National Coal Board v J E Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd [1951] 2 KB 861. It includes disturbance of the possession of goods by seizure (Au Tak Chen and Li Hon Ming [1960] HKDCLR 247) or removal (Kirk v Gregory (1876) 1 Ex D 55), or by an act causing damage to the goods (William Leitch xyzzy Co Ltd v Leydon [1931] AC 90 (HL)) or by an act of unlawful disposal (Chan Hoi v The Cmr of Police & AG (No 2) [1968] HKLR 126). Even mere touching of an object against the wishes of the plaintiff may amount to trespass: William Leitch xyzzy Co Ltd v Leydon, supra. A plaintiff who has possession of goods may have standing to sue for trespass to them, even if he or she is not the true owner. The subject matter of trespass to goods must be a personal chattel which is the subject of lawful possession: Buron v Denman (1848) 2 Exch 167. Also known as ‘trespass to goods’. See also Chattel; Conversion; Detinue; Trespass. 被告人對原告人正管有的貨物作出違法及直接的實質干擾：Srivastava & Tennekone The Law of Tort in Hong Kong （Butterworths, 1995年）第69頁。必須有蓄意的或疏忽的干擾才可構成侵入行為：National Coal Board v J E Evans & Co (Cardiff) Ltd [1951] 2 KB 861。包括藉以下的方式騷擾貨物的管有：扣押(Au Tak Chen and Li Hon Ming [1960] HKDCLR 247)、或移走 (Kirk v Gregory (1876) 1 Ex D 55)、或藉導致貨物損毀的行為(William Leitch & Co Ltd v Leydon, AG Barr & Co Ltd v Macgeoghegan [1931] AC 90（上議院）)、或藉違法處置的行為 (Chan Hoi v The Cmr of Police (No 2) [1968] HKLR 126)。即使違反原告人意願的僅僅觸碰物體也可構成侵犯行為：William Leitch & Co Ltd v Leydon, AG Barr & Co Ltd v Macgeoghegan,見上文。即使管有貨物的原告人並非真正的擁有人，他／她也可有資格就對他們的侵犯作出起訴。對貨物的侵犯的標的事項必須是合法管有標的的非土地實產： Buron v Denman (1848) 2 Exch 167。另稱「對貨物的侵犯」。另見 Chattel; Conversion; Detinue; Trespass。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。