Orr first argues that the trial court erred by rendering a directed verdict in favor of Hood at the close of Hood's case. However, the basis for Orr's argument is the contention that the trial court erred by excluding contract and non-performance issues related to mutual mistake of the parties and Orr's proffered testimony on this issue. It asserts that it should have been allowed to present contract and affirmative defenses at the trial. This argument is persuasive. Conversion is the exercise of dominion over property in violation of the rights of the owner or person entitled to possession.
Conversion can only result from conduct intended to affect property.
The intent required is not conscious wrongdoing but rather an intent to exercise dominion or control over the goods that is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. Here, the trial court denied Orr the right to prove that its right to the Blazer was superior to Orr's. If Orr had been able to demonstrate a superior right to the Blazer, no cause of action for conversion would lie. See, e.g., Arkansas Automotive Div. Orr should have been allowed to litigate the issue of whether it had a superior right to the Blazer.