University Business Law: Case Study on Trespass to Chattels Analysis

This case study analyzes a business law scenario involving trespass to chattels, specifically focusing on a situation where Mary's dog damages Sara's orchid garden, preventing Sara from fulfilling a contract to sell orchids to Vincent. The assignment explores the legal concept of trespass to chattels, examining the elements required for a claim, including intentional interference, lack of consent, actual harm, and damages. It references relevant case law, such as Burgess v. American Express Company, Inc., Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., and Glidden v. Szybiak, to illustrate the application of legal principles. The analysis concludes that Sara has grounds to take legal action against Mary for the financial damages incurred due to the dog's actions, highlighting the owner's liability for their pet's behavior. The study emphasizes the importance of proving damages and the intentional nature of the interference in establishing a successful claim.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rules................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
Reference.........................................................................................................................................6

2BUSINESS LAW
Issue
According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Sara can take legal action
against Mary for trampled over her orchid garden and not able to participate in an orchid
competition by one of her client Vincent?
Rules
According to the face fats it is a case of trespass to chattels where one party has
intentionally interfered with another person’s lawful possession of a chattel or movable personal
property which make it destroyed and damages. It is recognized as an offence under the tort law
where the physical interference contact with the chattel is necessary while destroying the
owner’s property by another party. It is the part of trespass de bonis asportatis. The lack of
Consent, actual harm, intention and damages must occur in the trespass to chattel (Rabin 2016).
In the famous case Burgess v. American Express Company, Inc., 2007 it has been
found that the plaintiff has make allegations against several defendants where he claimed that
they caused advertising messages which is pop up ads has been sent to his computer which is
Court found construing the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff where the claim has
been stated for trespass to chattels under North Carolina common law (Claeys 2013).
In another famous case Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co, 2008 the plaintiff has
claimed against the defendant about trespass to chattel where plaintiff has parked his car in a
private parking lot which has been placed by McLaurin Parking. However the plaintiff had
parked the car in another area under the parking lot which has been misrepresent and due to

3BUSINESS LAW
misrepresentation he faced some losses and claim the damages from the defendant (Michaud
2013).
Glidden v. Szybiak, 1949 is one of the famous old English case where plaintiff has
claimed compensation to recover for a personal injuries by a defendant who owned a dog the
defendant has guilty in, Tina trespass by middling with the dog and does not entitled to recover.
It is one of the famous cases of trespass to chattel where damage has been offered to the chattel
for a substantial period of time or bodily harm which has been caused due to the trespass (Rabin
2016).
According to the case study when Mary has bringing back the stray dogs she should be
aware about his neighbor’s garden where it trampled over the Orchid and cause damages to Sara
which is a case of trespass to chattel under the tort law (Claeys 2013).
Application
According to the case study Mary has found a stray dog with no caller where it was
starring miserably at her and when she feels sadness she decided to bring it back home. When
she bringing back the dog towards her home the dog which was named Cookie by her has went
into the garden of her neighbor Sara where it trampled over her orchid. However Sara has needed
to sell the search Orchid flower to Vincent who was participating in an Orchid competition
(Claeys 2013). However according to the contract with Vincent she failed to deliver the Orchid
where he get angry and threaten Sara to sue her for a not respecting their agreement. Now the
issue has been created by Mary’s dog Cookie when a person owned a dog or any pet he or she
must be liable for every activity by the pets (Rabin 2016). Therefore it is a case of trespass to
chattels under the tort law (Michaud 2013). Trespass to chattels is an activity where the

4BUSINESS LAW
infringing party must have intention or they have interfered with another person’s lawful position
of chattel or their personal property. A physical interference or contact with the chattel should be
found when there is an offence of trespass to chattels. In the offence of trespass to chattels there
must be disposition of the chattel should occur or destroying it or wearing the owners access to
eat which is marked as offence (Claeys 2013).
The basic elements of trespass to chattels are lack of consent, actual harm, intention and
damages. When the plaintiff is claiming about the trespass of chattels against the defendant there
should be a trespass must present where the consent has been given for certain access and the
valid trespass to chattels should be occur on the basis of contractual terms. If the trespass has not
found according to the contractual terms with dependent then it will not be claimed of the
offence of trespass of chattels (Rabin 2016).
The actual harm is one of the important parts in trespass to chattels where due to the
trespass the plaintiff should face with actual harm. The actual harm is depends in various form
where it could be any damage or in electronic message it could be found as a trespass where the
messages interface with technical operation in computer like pop-up messages while using the
Internet which cause actual hardware damage or impaired functioning. In general the harm could
be bodily injury or destroying the property or interference with the possession of the owner
(Michaud 2013).
The intention should be present while the defendant has been found in a offence of
trespass to chattels where the person is intentionally want to damage someone’s property or
violet the possession right of another which cause damage to the person (Claeys 2013).

5BUSINESS LAW
The damage is ultimate claim in trespass to chattels. When the plaintiff has faced with the
actual harm due to the trespass by the defendant it could be claimed as a economic way where
the property has been faced with loss or damaged. In this offence the damage must be proved
because without any quantifiable harm or damage the trespass to chattels is never been
identified. If it has been found that the property or the person has faced with damages then it can
be claimed which has been provided by economic way (Rabin 2016).
Therefore according to the case study Sara can claim the damages from Mary due to the
trespass to chattel. She faced monetary loss while selling her Orchid flower. Pet is also a
property of a person where damages by them are also liability for the owner who owned the pet.
Conclusion
Therefore according to the case facts it should be concluded that Sara can take legal
action against Mary for damaging her Orchid flower which cause her financial damage and claim
the compensation as per the damages of her property (Claeys 2013).

6BUSINESS LAW
Reference
Burgess v. American Express Company, Inc., 2007 NCBC 15 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 21, 2007)
(Diaz)
Claeys, E.R., 2013. On the'Property'and the'Tort'in Trespass.
Glidden v. Szybiak, 63 A.2d 233, 1949 N.H. LEXIS 1, 95 N.H. 318 (N.H. 1949)
Kirschbaum v. McLaurin Parking Co., 188 N.C. App. 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
Michaud, H., 2013. Tort Law: Concepts and Applications. Pearson Higher Ed.
Rabin, R.L., 2016. Perspectives on Privacy, Data Security and Tort Law. DePaul L. Rev., 66,
p.313.